Luc, It is true that: :blah a prov:Involvement . is a valid statement in prov-o. Since this issue was raised, all Involvements were "flattened" into ActivityInvolvement, EntityInvolvement, and AgentInvolvement -- each of which is a subclass of Involvement. This structure is the foundation of qualifications, and I am concerned that remove it will reduce understandability and thus adoption. I believe this concern was also aligned with the "lose" prov:qualified property that could point at any Involvement. With prov:qualified replaced by its sub properties with specific ranges to prov:Usage, etc., is this issue less of a concern? Thanks, Tim On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-321 (dgarijo): Instances of involvements can be expressed without a subclass. [Ontology] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/321 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: Ontology > > The ontology allows for instances of involvements to be > expressed, without specifying its subclass (Usage, Generation, etc). This is not aligned with the data model. > > > >Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:49:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC