- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:43:52 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|a6173d9622c3fd9e721a367c59db4e15o24LiE08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F553398>
Yes, 152 can be closed, but 262 is still open. Cheers, Luc On 05/03/12 19:01, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Ah. ISSUE 152 is overtaken by > https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ? > > You still consider 262 open, right? > > -Tim > > > On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> 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 21:45:12 UTC