- From: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:59:31 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- 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>
Sent from my iPad On Jul 10, 2012, at 19:10, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > I assume you mean here slicing the PROV-AQ terms out of the PROV-O document, not from the OWL file for the namespace? Yes. -Tim > 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 Wednesday, 11 July 2012 01:00:18 UTC