- 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