W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:53:56 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|4864c16a5a3dace2a2dd9c57e9968c06n6O8s208L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E2D2114.2040908@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

I believe there is a difference between a conceptual model and its 
encoding in
a specific data/knowledge format.

In my view, it is reasonable to require the presence of a role in a 
conceptual model.
A given notation, say RDF, may provide "abbreviations", which allow for 
the role not
to be expressed. This notation will have an explanation that absence of 
a role corresponds
to the role  "unspecified".

So, I believe that the conceptual model should define distinguished 
roles, e.g. unspecified.

BTW, the file note.txt in the repository also suggested other roles


On 07/23/2011 03:14 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/40
> Raised by: Paul Groth
> On product: Conceptual Model
> Currently, roles are required for Generation, Use, and isControlledby.
> Specifically the following sentence is given:
> "Use, Generation, and Control assertions must contain a role."
> It is not clear why roles must always be there. In some cases, I may not want to assert the role that something played with respect to a process.
> Suggested resolution is to replace MUST with SHOULD.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 07:54:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:07 UTC