On 13/03/2012 08:06, Paul Groth wrote: > 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. Ok, thanks. khalid > > 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 09:49:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:13 UTC