Fwd: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

This is worth discussing as a group as it relates to the islands and other named graph discussions.

Regards,
Dave




Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
> From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> Subject: Fwd: PROV-ISSUE-291 (TLebo): Entity owl:disjointWith Activity [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]
> Date: March 5, 2012 17:14:58 EST
> To: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>