- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:10:57 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, Shouldn't they all have each? I mean can we not write plan(blah;...) in prov-n? cheers Paul On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-383 (how-to-handle-subtypes): How to handle subtypes in PROV-DM [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/383 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm > > > PROV-DM defines a variety of subtypes and handles them differently. > > Some have an explicit prov-n construct (I think for those, it's a legacy > of the past, when signatures were not uniform). > > Some are explicitly represented in UML diagrams, some are not. > Some are listed in table 4. > > PROV-N in UML in Table 4 > notation diag > > wasRevisionOf yes yes yes > > hadOriginalSource yes yes yes > > wasQuotedFrom yes yes yes > > prov:Plan no yes no > > prov:SoftwareAgent no no no > > prov:Organization no no no > > prov:Person no no no > > prov:Bundle no yes yes > > prov:Collection no yes yes > > prov:Dictionary no yes yes > > prov:EmptyDictionary no no no > > Suggestions on how to handle them systematically are welcome! > > Luc > > > -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 14:11:34 UTC