- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:51:58 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
On 05/03/2012 16:45, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Khalid, > > You mentioned that the section 8 diagram needs improvement. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O#Qualified_Usage > > has a diagram that shows the parallel between the unqualified and the qualified. > Perhaps you could consider a diagram like this. That certainly looks much better that what we have in Section 8. One option would be to use one or two diagrams from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O#Qualified_Usage for example QualifiedUsage and QualifiedGeneration (The example will help us choose which one, and one diagram illustrating the hierarchy of involvement that we have. Thanks, khalid > > Regards, > Tim > > On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Khalid, >> >> For information, Paolo and I have decided to restructure prov-dm (WD5) as follows, >> in several components. The intent was to address Jun's comment on core vs common. >> >> - Activity, Entity, Events >> >> - Agency and Responsibility >> >> - Derivations >> wasDerivedFrom, revision, quotation, original sources >> - Alternate relations (title to be defined) >> Alternate, Specialization >> - Annotation >> - Collections >> >> So, in other words, we'll drop the common/core. It would be good if it was not used in the prov-o. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:52:23 UTC