- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:58:44 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Simon, On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-319 (dgarijo): Domain of hasAnnotation [Ontology] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/319 > > Raised by: Simon Miles > On product: Ontology > > What does it mean that hasAnnotation does not have a specified domain > (my ignorance of RDFS)? If it means that it applies to anything, yes, any rdfs:Resource can be described using prov:hasAnnotation. prov:Entity and prov:Activity are two subtypes of rdfs:Resource that can be described using prov:hasAnnotation The largest reason for not having the domain defined is that we can't have an owl:unionOf in OWL-RL. > then > what is the distinction between using hasAnnotation and just giving an > arbitrary non-prov RDF statement? Do you have an example of non-prov RDF statement that brings you concern? > What is its connection to > provenance? I think this is a concern on DM, not the ontology. I'd suggest: 1) clearing up your rdfs:domain concerns and reassigning this ISSUE to DM or 2) start a new ISSUE on DM about it's connection to provenance. Regards, Tim
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 15:59:16 UTC