- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:50:59 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:12, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > > Note that the extension ontologies allow me to simply rdf:type the > prov:Entity prov:used by the prov:ProcessExecution: > > 42 prov:used [ > 43 a commerce:Buyer; > 44 prov:assumedBy <http://data.semanticweb.org/person/luc-moreau>; > 45 a prov:EntityInRole, prov:Entity; # Since :Buyer subClassOf > EntityInRole. > 46 ]; > the prov:assumedRole is "filledIn" by inference, while non-inferencing > applications can just use the rdf:type directly (e.g. Buyer). I really like this. I know Luc will protest to the need for (here quite strong) OWL reasoning for this to work. However a client doing this can simply include the inferred properties in its serialisation. Now here the pattern is that the EntityInRole instance is both a subclass of commerce:Buyer and have prov:assumedRole commerce:Buyer. This is OK thanks to OWL2 punning, I assume? (This would not make prov:EntityInRole a subclass of owl:Class, right?) Would this cause any issues? How is the property prov:assumedRole defined? Is it a subproperty of rdf:type, or should it be up to each user to decide to use this pattern or not? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 13:51:51 UTC