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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of prov:entity? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:49:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbexn3DYd=aHLBqr3nRMLNUmnAZMaDJMekF9yxW17mqt9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc raised some concerns about making prov:pairValue a sub-property of
prov:entity in yesterday's telecon.
If we decide to make
prov:pairValue<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#pairValue>a
sub-property of
prov:entity <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#p_entity>, that
would imply that prov:pairValue now has the domain
prov:EntityInfluence<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence>.

Would this mean that we have to make
prov:KeyValuePair<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/releases/WD-prov-dictionary-20130312/Overview.html#KeyValuePair>a
subclass of
prov:EntityInfluence<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/#EntityInfluence>as
well? This seems weird and counter-intuitive to me. It would imply
that
a dictionary would have some influence on all its members.

Tim, could you share your views on this?

Regards,
Tom

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

> PROV-ISSUE-647 (TomDN): Make prov:pariValue a subproperty of prov:entity?
> [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647
>
> Raised by: Tom De Nies
> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>
> Came up in an off-list conversation with Tim about the PROV-O of
> dictionaries. It appears to be useful to make prov:pairValue a subproperty
> of prov:entity. This way applications could use spec-level constructs to
> "accidentally" "understand" part of the "brand new construct".
>
> Nice phrasing of the rationale by Tim:
> "Having prov:pairValue is a very nice subproperty for these uninterested
> in the alignment with qualifications, but still provides those that do care
> about qualifications a treat."
>
> I see no real problems with adding this for the next release. Is this
> acceptable to the group or did we miss some consequences?
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:50:04 UTC

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