- From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:49:36 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=hbbexn3DYd=aHLBqr3nRMLNUmnAZMaDJMekF9yxW17mqt9w@mail.gmail.com>
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