Khalid, On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Khalid, > after the latest edits to the ontology and the discussions within the prov-o team, > are you still not comfortable with the name "involved"? > I moved the issue to "pending review", but feel free to open it. > > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2012/2/26 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> > > I forgot to specify while raising this issue that it is related to the ontology. > > > On 26/02/2012 12:57, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-269: involved property need to be renamed and its sup-properties need to be structured in a better manner > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/269 > > Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame > On product: > > > I find the term involved not intuitive. I thought of "related", but it is not great either. > > Additionally, I would suggest giving more structure to the sub-properties of involved, to reflect for example the kinds of domain and range involved, e.g., entity_entity_related, agent_agent_related, entity_activity_related, and activity_activity_related. For simplicity, I think that we should avoid these artificial steps in the hierarchy, and let the domains and ranges speak for themselves. I hope you'll agree. Regards, Tim > Again we need some intuitive names for the new properties that we introduce. > > Khalid > > > > > > >Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 23:17:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC