Re: [provo] Re: PROV-ISSUE-269: involved property need to be renamed and its sup-properties need to be structured in a better manner

On 14/03/2012 23:13, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Khalid,
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
>> Hi Khalid,
>> after the latest edits to the ontology and the discussions within the 
>> prov-o team,
>> are you still not comfortable with the name "involved"?
>> I moved the issue to "pending review", but feel free to open it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> 2012/2/26 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>>
>>
>>
>>     I forgot to specify while raising this issue that it is related
>>     to the ontology.
>>
>>
>>     On 26/02/2012 12:57, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>         PROV-ISSUE-269: involved property need to be renamed and its
>>         sup-properties need to be structured in a better manner
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/269
>>
>>         Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
>>         On product:
>>
>>
>>         I find the term involved not intuitive. I thought of
>>         "related", but it is not great either.
>>
>>         Additionally, I would suggest giving more structure to the
>>         sub-properties of involved, to reflect for example the kinds
>>         of domain and range involved, e.g., entity_entity_related,
>>         agent_agent_related, entity_activity_related, and
>>         activity_activity_related. 
>>
>
> For simplicity, I think that we should avoid these artificial steps in 
> the hierarchy, and let the domains and ranges speak for themselves.
>
> I hope you'll agree.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
Please disregard my comment, as it was made before refining the 
structure of the hierarchy.

Thanks, khalid

>
>
>
>>         Again we need some intuitive names for the new properties
>>         that we introduce.
>>
>>         Khalid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>