Dear Martin,
Thank you for your explanations, and sorry that I cannot join the discussion of
this issue today.
I think my point was that your formalisation is for "directly triggered",
whereas the flood example suggests that "triggered" can also be used in the
sense of "eventually triggered".
Hi
Just a quick question on this. We develop the model independently of
technology. I can see that this discussion is getting technical. I
currently implement propositions sets using RDF named graphs because we can
and it works but it is not stipulated. Rob suggests that there are tech
upgrades th
Dear Robert,
We have just created the new issue to discuss this in detail. We should
prepare a detailed analysis, citing all pros and cons. May be we
continue this discussion better in a subgroup?
Named Graphs are not a very specific technology, if we take the fact
that all current triple st
If the intent is that the assertion is in the discourse, and not a
syntactic workaround for .1 properties that would be unnecessary if we had
RDF* or property graphs, then I would say E13 is exactly the right approach
to use. In comparison, I consider the PC classes to be just that - a
syntactic wo
Dear Martin,
I agree that E13 is a poor man's solution to a complicated problem. But it
is for some, the solution available. Other solutions like Inf for
documenting historical argumentation and using named graphs is great as a
possibility. Using prov o to represent the meta discursive level of th
Dear George,
I agree with you below about the historical aspects. The annotation
model has the same historical aspect, but is not limited to a single link.
Let us discuss!😁
Best,
Martin
On 5/11/2023 12:41 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear Francesco, Martin,
Again for the record since I seem
Dear Francesco, Martin,
Again for the record since I seem to be being read at cross purposes, when
I mention the word 'provenance' I do not mean it in the sense of dataset
provenance (to which prov o would apply). I mean that in the world to be
described (the real world of tables charis cats dogs
Dear Francesco,
This is an excellent paper.
I cite: "However, reification has no formal semantics, and leads to a
high increase in the number of triples, hence, it does not scale well. "
I agree with your proposals. Prov-O mapping is a must for CRM-SIG.
Best,
Martin
On 5/10/2023 11:55 PM,
