- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:09:59 +0000
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stephan, But your point is not specific to this issue. PROV-DM Part II contains many constraints that have not been encoded in OWL, for the reasons that we know. Right? Can we close ISSUE-203? Luc On 03/13/2012 02:51 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > Err, not sure. The problem is that we have standard way to make this > existential qualification clear in OWL, but are prevented from using > such because of our OWL-RL requirement. Stating this rule out of band > of the ontology is not a great solution, since the point of using OWL > is to put the semantics ~in~ the ontology. > > --Stephan -- 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
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 15:10:35 UTC