W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-617: Why are some prov-constraint inferences in prov-o, but not others? [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:39:54 -0500
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <55DABB7E-8DA3-47C6-9413-2F3CA2CCCEE6@rpi.edu>
To: pgroth@gmail.com
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.



Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:40:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:28 UTC