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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:31:27 -0400
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3A26C90C-D57A-46D2-BB88-1AE74FE3FBC4@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>

On Jun 3, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

I'm wondering if this can be combined with the ContextualizedEntity that sprouted in Luc's latest ternary alternateOf proposalů

-Tim


> 
> 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.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 17:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC