Re: PROV-ISSUE-641 (TomDN): Should qualifiedInsertion/Removal imply qualifiedDerivation? [PROV-DICTIONARY]

Hi Tom,

+1 for the proposal.
Luc

On 03/22/2013 12:37 PM, Tom De Nies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the proposed resolution to this issue is to make 
> qualifiedInsertion/Removal imply qualifiedDerivation by making them 
> sub-properties of qualifiedDerivation. The motivation for this is that 
> Insertion and Removal are already subclasses of Derivation, and it 
> would make the qualified properties more consistent with that.
>
> If any members of the WG have an objection to this, we ask kindly to  
> inform us by replying to this email. If no objections are received 
> before Tuesday March 26th, we will assume this resolution is accepted,
>
> - Tom
>
> 2013/3/7 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org 
> <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>
>
>     PROV-ISSUE-641 (TomDN): Should qualifiedInsertion/Removal imply
>     qualifiedDerivation?  [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/641
>
>     Raised by: Tom De Nies
>     On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>
>     Came up in Luc's review, but it was decided to handle this in the
>     next release.
>
>     Should qualifiedInsertion and qualifiedRemoval imply
>     qualifiedDerivation? If yes, how do we specify this? Through a
>     sub-property? Does that break anything?
>
>     Note that Insertion and Removal are already subclasses of
>     Derivation. Do we need this extra implication then?
>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm