Re: PROV-ISSUE-636 (PROV-DC has provenance): Include has_provenance in PROV-DC from Graham Klyne on 2013-03-04 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from March 2013)

From: Graham Klyne <gklyne@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 07:26:09 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b13af6c0-834f-48b6-a74d-a46411a1f4a0@email.android.com>

It seems to me that dcterms:provenance and ProvenanceStatement should me mappable to prov:has_provenance and Bundle respectively.  We might need to tweak some descriptions to ensure the DCTerms example with just rdfs:label remains valid.

#g.

Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

>PROV-ISSUE-636 (PROV-DC has provenance): Include has_provenance in
>PROV-DC
>
>http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/636
>
>Raised by: Daniel Garijo
>On product: 
>
>- It seems we should say something about the dct:provenance relation
>other thatn we don't do a mapping. Can we not map it to bundles or have
>it point to an entity? I wonder what the relation to
>prov:has_provenance is?

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 07:26:48 UTC