- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:10:15 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I assume you mean here slicing the PROV-AQ terms out of the PROV-O document, not from the OWL file for the namespace? If so, I have no problem with that. #g -- On 10/07/2012 20:56, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Paul, > > Given these proposals, is it safe to slice out PAQ from PROV-O. > I can move the terms into a paq.owl and save it away for later use by the Note. > > Thanks, > Tim > > On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > >> I've added a brief summary - mainly a placeholder. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> On 10/07/2012 17:41, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm still not understanding the problem that arises if all terms from all >>>> documents are included in one OWL file, where the PROV-AQ terms (and >>>> others?) are simply described with an rdfs:label and rdfs:comment value, and >>>> nothing more. >>> >>> Could you write this as another solution? It would certainly be less >>> messy, as those additional terms would not generally show up as >>> anything in ontology tools (if anything they would be 'individuals'). >>> >>> It would not be sufficient for Dictionary which needs to be done as an >>> PROV-O extension, but there could be a third property owl:isDefinedBy >>> (?) to a separate dictionary.owl. >>> >>> It would be like a variant of 2.1. >>> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 23:26:08 UTC