ISSUE-367: prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear
hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear
prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Ontology
- Raised by:
- Stephan Zednik
- Opened on:
- 2012-04-26
- Description:
- 1) There are two domains defined for prov:hadActivity
- prov:Involvement
- the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility
from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain
Where a property P has more than one rdfs:domain property, then the resources denoted by subjects of triples with predicate P are instances of all the classes stated by the rdfs:domain properties.
From what I can tell this means the domain is the intersection of prov:Involvement with the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility, which is just the union of prov:Derivation and prov:Responsibility since both are subclasses of prov:Involvement.
2) annotations on prov:hadActivity
- it appears that the domain has been relaxed to be a union of Derivation and Responsibility, so I think we can remove the prov:todo annotation
- The rdfs:comment is currently "The activity generating the the derived entity and using the derived-from entity". I think this should be updated to reflect the relaxed domain. What does it mean when a qualified Responsibility hadActivity? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology] (from zednis@rpi.edu on 2012-04-26)
- [owl changed] Re: PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-04-26)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-04-26)
- PROV-ISSUE-367 (hadActivity-domain-and-comments-unclear): prov:hadActivity domain and usage unclear [Ontology] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-04-26)
Related notes:
Tim has updated the property annotations and explained why we are using two domains (one for RL++, one for RL)
Stephan Zednik, 26 Apr 2012, 15:11:07Display change log