W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > September 2012

suggested resolution ISSUE-532

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:31:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoW5YWcr4thhhiaoXE0w9ko4wLj_i5Y8ZGTaO0S2v-W-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D." <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>
Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Dear Robert

Thank you for your comment. Below is the suggested resolution. You can
find any suggested changes in the latest editor's draft at
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

Thanks,
Paul

ISSUE-532 (Role)
"Role should be allowed for delegation so the relationship between the
delegate and the responsible entity can be specified."

Original email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0122.html

Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/532

Group Response
- The Working Group has given careful consideration to roles in PROV.
We considered allowing roles in all relations. A problem with such a
permissive approach is that it is not clear who is playing the role.
For instance, if a role is added to delegation, which agent is
assuming that role: the delegate or the responsible?
- For the example of delegation, the group suggests using the
attribute "prov:type" if a subtype of the relation needs to be
specified, e.g. contractual delegation.

References:
- For a history of the debates: see http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
- For a group resolution on this matter: see:
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-07#resolution_2
- For the final definition: see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jun/0233.html

Changes to the document: none.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:31:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:31:41 GMT