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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-641 (TomDN): Should qualifiedInsertion/Removal imply qualifiedDerivation? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:37:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbdDB+ey0e1hYPJzramwyv9MS_iYduE=1q=qHJQkA8Hh4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

the proposed resolution to this issue is to make qualifiedInsertion/Removal
imply qualifiedDerivation by making them sub-properties of
qualifiedDerivation. The motivation for this is that Insertion and Removal
are already subclasses of Derivation, and it would make the qualified
properties more consistent with that.

If any members of the WG have an objection to this, we ask kindly to
inform us by replying to this email. If no objections are received before
Tuesday March 26th, we will assume this resolution is accepted,

- Tom

2013/3/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-641 (TomDN): Should qualifiedInsertion/Removal imply
> qualifiedDerivation?  [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/641
>
> Raised by: Tom De Nies
> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>
> Came up in Luc's review, but it was decided to handle this in the next
> release.
>
> Should qualifiedInsertion and qualifiedRemoval imply qualifiedDerivation?
> If yes, how do we specify this? Through a sub-property? Does that break
> anything?
>
> Note that Insertion and Removal are already subclasses of Derivation. Do
> we need this extra implication then?
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC