- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:28:08 -0500
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:41:25 UTC
That works. I closed it. -Tim On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Tim, > prov:preceeded no longer exists in the ontology. We have wasInformedBy or wasStartedByActivity > to relate activities. > > Can this issue be closed? > > Thanks, > Daniel > > > 2011/10/5 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> > > PROV-ISSUE-115 (Tlebo): prov:preceded should be replaced with prov:followed [Formal Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/115 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: Formal Model > > All other predicates are pointing from the newer rdfs:Resource to the older rdfs:Resource (e.g. prov:wasDerivedFrom). > > This "backwards looking" paradigm makes sense because we need to describe newer things in terms of the older things sitting around. > > prov:preceded is inconsistent with this paradigm, as it "looks forwards" to the newer one, which may not exist yet. > > I recommend we REPLACE prov:preceded with prov:followed and reverse the definition. To keep the ontology trim, we should leave the definition of prov:followed's inverse to an extension. > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:41:25 UTC