Re: PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On Ontology [Formal Model]

Hi Daniel,
yes, it's fine to close the issue.
Luc

On 05/03/2012 16:29, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> most if not all of the terms you ennumerated in your list have been 
> included in the ontology.
> EntityInRole, preceeded and Revision have been deleted.
>
> Since there are existant comments from the most recent version of the 
> ontology, I propose
> to close this issue.
>
> Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> 2011/10/6 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker 
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org>>
>
>
>     PROV-ISSUE-116 (general-comments-on-ontology): General Comments On
>     Ontology [Formal Model]
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/116
>
>     Raised by: Luc Moreau
>     On product: Formal Model
>
>     Comments about ontology
>     -----------------------
>
>     Ultimately, all concepts/notions of PROV-DM need to be
>     serializable in RDF, and
>     most of them are likely to be reflected in the ontology.
>
>     At the moment, the document is silent about:
>     - time
>     - account
>     - provenance container (class defined but not illustrated)
>     - qualifiers
>     - annotations
>     - attributes
>     - all derivation variants
>     - collections
>
>     I would expect all to be discussed in some form. They don't
>     necessarily require a
>     new concept in the ontology, but we need to be able to see how
>     they are mapped.
>
>     Vice-versa, the ontology introduces notions that are not obviously
>     mapped to
>     PROV-DM.
>     - EntityInRole
>     - provo:Revision differs from provdm:wasRevisionOf
>     - preceded
>     - OWL2 annotation properties (e.g. rdfs:label, comment, seeAlos,
>     isDefineBy,
>      owl:deprecated,
>     versionInfo,priorVersion,backwardCompatibleWith,incompatibleWith  
>     ...)
>
>     Are they necessary for interoperability? Should they be made
>     explicit in Prov-DM,
>     or how are they mapped to PROV-DM?
>
>     Finally, PROV-DM comes with a set of constraints which do not seem to
>     have all be captured.  As a minimum, the document should state which
>     ones are not captured by the ontology, but should be enforced by other
>     means (it's OK to say TBD later).
>
>
>
>
>