- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:39:54 -0500
- To: pgroth@gmail.com
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:40:17 UTC
Paul and Luc, On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the rationale is as follows. PROV-O has three design drivers: 1) reflect the concepts defined in PROV-DM, 2) provide a well-structured and usable ontology 3) remain tractable. Realising those goals may lead to certain inferences that match what is defined in prov-constraints. These matches are artefacts of the design and are not derived from prov-constraints. In particular, the two inferences that are matched are because of the class hierarchies included to help organize the ontology. Yes, I think this is reasonable. I included it in the response, and removed my complicated rules. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617 -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:40:17 UTC