--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/ontology/components/wasDerivedFrom/public-prov-wg-2011Nov-0170-blogpost.ttl	Mon Nov 21 16:48:08 2011 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+@prefix rdf:     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
+@prefix rdfs:    <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
+@prefix xsd:     <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
+@prefix owl:     <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
+@prefix time:    <http://www.w3.org/2006/time#> .
+@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
+@prefix skos:    <http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#> .
+@prefix prov:    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o/> .
+@prefix :        <#> .
+
+<core> {
+   :blogpost
+      rdfs:seeAlso <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0170.html>;
+      dcterms:description "blogpost wasDerivedFrom Report at 10am Thursday"; 
+      a prov:Entity;
+      prov:wasDerivedFrom :report;
+      rdfs:comment "fully expanded notion of derivation: wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1)";
+   .
+
+   :report
+      a prov:Entity;
+   .
+}
+
+<full> {
+   
+}
+
+<lazy> {
+   <lazy> dcterms:description
+"""Sure there is some process there, there may be an interval. But I just don't want to assert all that information.
+
+Again, my fundamental thing is that I want to assert derivation chains without (knowingly) asserting anything about process.""";
+}
+
+