Fine Tim, Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 28 Mar 2012, at 01:52, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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 04:33:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:13 UTC