- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:14:58 -0500
- To: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
- Message-Id: <BAA51F51-D93C-45DC-998B-90DDDF8991BE@rpi.edu>
rdf 1.1 wg,
Could I get some help addressing how a potential inconsistency is handled across named graphs?
-------
:account_1 {
:entity a prov:Entity
}
:account_2 {
:entity a prov:Activity
}
prov:Entity owl:disjointWith prov:Activity .
-------
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Tim Lebo
Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: March 5, 2012 5:04:54 PM EST
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Yes, this seems to be aligned with prov-dm.
>
> Can you explain me how an axiom like this should be interpreted
> if we have accounts/named graph.
>
> In acc1,
> :a a Entity
>
> in acc2,
> :a a Activity
>
> Is the axiom holding within a given account/named graph, but not necessarily across?
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
> On 05/03/12 13:59, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/291
>>
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o
>>
>> Should:
>>
>> Entity owl:disjointWith Activity ?
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 22:15:27 UTC