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

updated in the ED
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/Overview.html#qualifiedInsertion

Issue marked pending review

- Tom

2013/3/25 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>  Hi Tom,
>
> +1 for the proposal.
> Luc
>
>
> On 03/22/2013 12:37 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
>
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>