Hi Khalid, I would prefer to leave this issue open as a check when the next version of the ontology comes out. This is not just about owl-rl but how the whole thing looks in things like sparql. I'm sure it will be resolved but I want it as a reminder to check. cheers Paul Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Given that we decided to adopt OWL-RL, which is a (subset) profile of > OWL. Would you be happy if we close this issue? > > Thanks, khalid > > On 06/10/2011 10:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-119 (vanilla-rdf): How does vanilla RDF work with PROV Ontology [Formal Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/119 >> >> Raised by: Paul Groth >> On product: Formal Model >> >> The Provenance Ontology uses OWL for a number of reasons. However, we agreed at the last F2F that it was a good idea for adoption that that OWL be easy to use in "vanilla RDF" or developer friendly RDF. >> >> I was wondering if we could either add a section or another document that shows how some examples look in such vanilla rdf. Essentially, what can I do if I don't know anything about reasoning or even class hierarchies. >> >> >> >> > -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University AmsterdamReceived on Monday, 12 March 2012 20:07:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:13 UTC