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: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:58:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4FCCF74B.5060808@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 04/06/2012 18:31, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
> 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

I don't know, but my intuition is not.  I think contextualization per 
alternateOf, etc., operates in a different place than sub-typing/sub-relations. 
  (Something like sets of entities vs sets of things that make up an entity - 
but that's a sloppy statement so don't read too much into it.)

#g
--


>> 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 Tuesday, 5 June 2012 10:03:18 UTC

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