W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

ISSUE 384 comment. (Was: prov-wg meeting minutes 2012-05-31)

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:09:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4FCAFF81.2050905@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

On 01/06/2012 10:03, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
> Given that ISSUE-384 and ISSUE-385 are blockers, can I strongly invite
> you to participate in the debate, so that we converge soon.
> ISSUE-384: role
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
> Tim's suggestion:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0455.html
> Graham's suggestion:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0453.html

There's a third option here:  drop prov:role and just use prov:type, which is 
what Simon's responses point towards.

While I personally have no problem with using prov:role to subtype relations, if 
it causes confusion for others I'd happily go with just prov:type.

I feel the alternative of trying to characterize whether the subtyping is based 
on the subject or the object of the relation is a step towards over-specification.

Received on Sunday, 3 June 2012 07:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:16 UTC