- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:56:10 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|2399ac111b45b6226f35d31b0d01e1d2o24GuC08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F54F02A>
yes, Daniel, it's now overtaken by events. The issue can be closed. On 05/03/2012 16:49, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Luc, > Right now we have used "Involvement" to qualify the different properties. > The property that links "Elements" with "Involvements" is qualified. > There is an additional issue about being able to express things with > the ontology > that we are not able to express in the DM (issue > https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262), > so I propose to close this issue. > > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2011/11/18 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker > <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org>> > > > PROV-ISSUE-152 (QualifiedInvolvement): will the > QualifiedInvolvement approach work for other relations? [Ontology] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/152 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: Ontology > > > The prov-o document has introduced a qualifier for participation, > which is not in prov-dm. There is increasing evidence that it is > useful to qualify all/most relations of prov-dm. > > Is the approach for qualifiedInvolvement be extensible for all > relations? In particular, for Activity -> Activity relations, such > as wasInformedBy. > > QualifiedInvolvement seems to have "The hadQualifiedEntity > property links the QualifiedInvolvement class with the Entity > class.". But wasInformedBy does not have entity? > > Thoughts? > > Note, this issue shouldn't block the release of the document as fpwd. > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:56:36 UTC