- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:17:24 +0200
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James, Sorry I may have misunderstood the question but if we can write a clear response that would be good. Also, apologies for the extra issues, my computer did some crazy things when I was making the issue last night. I'll close them. Thanks Paul On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > I don't understand the summary of the issue. The original question seemed (to me) to not be about qualification at all, but about whether PROV-CONSTRAINTS ensures that the two different ways of giving the start time of an activity match. It already does this for PROV-DM (via constraints 29 and 30). > > For PROV-O, since we have not specified anything about how PROV-DM maps to PROV-O or vice versa, I don't see anything that needs to change here. If we were to specify how PROV-CONSTRAINTS mapped to OWL, then we would want to ensure that the translation of the constraints 29 and 30 gives the expected inference, but I believe we just resolved not to specify that. > > This issue seems to have been raised three times accidentally (555 and 556 are identical); perhaps the duplicates can be closed. > > --James > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-554 (time-qualification): public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same [prov-dm-constraints] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/554 >> >> Raised by: Paul Groth >> On product: prov-dm-constraints >> >> This is a public comment: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0002.html for full details >> >> >> >> > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 11:17:51 UTC