Re: Provenance of Inferred statements

Named graphs are the best way that I know.  IMO they're much more 
convenient than reification.

David

On 08/06/2016 07:39 PM, cristiano longo wrote:
> Let me explain with an example. Let us consider the following three
> statements:
> s1) A relativeOf B
> s2) B relativeOf C
> s3) B relativeOf D
>
> of course s1) and s2) are in the provenance of
>
> s4) A relativeOf C
> assuming that relativeOf is transitive, whereas s3) is not as it is not
> necessary to infer s4)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, cristiano longo
> <cristianolongo@gmail.com <mailto:cristianolongo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks all I'm studying 1) how to represent the provenance of a
>     statement (reification is a chance) and 2) what is and how it can be
>     determined the provenance of an inferred statement.
>
>
>     Il 07/ago/2016 01:21 AM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org
>     <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> ha scritto:
>
>         On 08/06/2016 04:39 PM, Cristiano Longo wrote:
>
>             Hi all, I'm approaching the notion of provenance related to
>             inferred
>             information. I wander if there are studies about that or
>             something which
>             may be related.
>
>
>         We are using prov:wasDerivedFrom, from the W3C PROV ontology, to
>         indicate that one graph was derived from another graph.
>
>         What kind of information are you trying to find?  What kind of
>         studies?
>
>         David Booth
>
>

Received on Sunday, 7 August 2016 05:09:31 UTC