- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:31:27 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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 proposal… -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