- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:51:36 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I propose to close this, as it overlaps with ISSUE-264 which has already been closed. -Tim On Mar 27, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 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 00:52:05 UTC