On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > Looking at the domain of hadRole again, I believe what we have right now is the result of the RL++ compromise. The current domain in DL would be the intersection of prov:Influence and the union of prov:Association and prov:InstantaneousEvent, which equates to just the union of prov:Association and prov:InstantaneousEvent. In RL, the union is ignored so the domain would be recognized as prov:Influence. There was no way to get the domain aligned with the DM under RL, so adding Influence was a fallback, otherwise the domain would be unspecified. > +1 -Tim > That is at least my recollection of why it is as it currently is. > > --Stephan > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: > >> Prov-o team: >> there seems to be a bug in the ontology, which Luc highlighted in the last telecon: >> >> prov:Influence is listed as domain of prov:hadRole, and this is not compatible >> with PROV-DM. I have checked the latest documents and the only changes to do are: >> Remove prov:Inflluence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the ontology. >> Remove prov:Influence from the domain of prov:hadRole in the Overview.html document. >> Remove prov:hadRole in the "described with properties" box in Overview.html >> If nobody disagrees with these changes, I will commit them on Monday. >> >> Best, >> >> Daniel >> >
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 18:07:42 UTC