- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:50:40 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 10:51:07 UTC
Hi All, We have had two public about the encoding of constraints using owl [1], [2]. I have created ISSUE-612 to deal with this. We discussed this previously as a working group by saying that the owl encoding of constraints was "an implementation" of those constraints. However, there seems to be some expectation that this would be the case. Are there any suggestions on how to best address this? We obviously need to say or do something as this issue has arisen twice. Thanks Paul [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0005.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0000.html P.S. Related to ISSUE-611 -- -- 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 - The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 10:51:07 UTC