- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:30:24 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, Thank you for your suggestion. I have added it as ISSUE-372 and we will be discussing it today at our telecon. Regards, Tim On May 7, 2012, at 6:10 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > (I have not found yet the semantics document, I am not sure whether what I write makes sense...) > > Looking at the Prov-o and the qualified terms. Taking the first time in the list, ie, qualifiedUsage. Isn't it correct that, at least conceptually, if I have > > ex:E a prov:Entity; > prov:qualifiedUsage [ > a prov:Usage ; > prov:entity ex:E > ] . > > then, again conceptually, I would expect something like > > ex:E prov:used ex:E . > > to be 'present'. It strikes me that this is exactly what the OWL 2 property chains do (and those are still OWL RL), by saying: > > (prov:qualifiedUsage prov:entity) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used . > > Isn't it worth adding it to the OWL ontology? Or do I miss something here? > > Ivan > > P.S. I use Turtle for these. Please, please, pretty please, would it be possible to generate a decent Turtle version of the OWL Ontology? :-) > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 13:30:59 UTC