Re: PROV-ISSUE-203: Proposal to amend definition and usage of Plan in PROV-DM [prov-dm]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Stephan,
> 
> On 15/12/11 23:44, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>>> PROPOSAL 2: Amend plan link record such that it is not a specialization of an activity association record.
>>>> 
>>>> Comment: I do not think we should define all plans as agents.  By our existing definition a plan is a "set of actions or steps ... to achieve some goal."  It is a description (usually in the form of a document) of the action or actions an agent should take to achieve a desired goal.
>>>>   
>>> 
>>> If the intent is to allow plans to be entities and not agents, it is not the only approach.
>>> I would like to suggest that:
>>> 1. Constraint http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#association-Agent
>>>   should not hold, since the notion of just being associated with an activity does not imply agency.
>>> 
>>> 2. Define agency independently from wasAssociatedWith.
>>> 
>>> If we do this, then I think we can keep hadPlan as a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
>>> 
>>> My rationale is to try and minimize the number of distinct concepts/relations in the model.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I definitely do not think association it should infer agency.
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
> 
> You may recall that this was a hard fought battle at F2F1 (this was initially stated in the context of agent and wasControlledBy).
> 
> We are now seeing some problematic implications of this rule.

I think we are seeing the problems of applying this implication to a relation as broad as wasAssociatedWith.

I still see no problems inferring agency from hadParticipant and wasControlledBy.

--Stephan

> 
> I am afraid of reopening a can of worms, but I feel that there is no other solution, to address these two problems.
> 
> Luc