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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:10:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2D4F11.5060102@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
that this is legal follows by the def. of Agents as Bobs, but I wonder whether we are clear on the difference in meaning between

1) isDerivedFrom(e0,David) and
2) isDerivedFrom(e0,e1)

with agent(David)  but e1 is not asserted to be an Agent.

The semantics of (1) is not entirely clear to me.

This goes back to my problem that "being an Agent" is a property that may hold in the context of an activity, rather than some Bobs
being Agents "per se".


> Given that isDerivedFrom is between Bobs this by definition allows it to relate agents, it would nice for informative to mention
> this in the definition.
> For example, I would like to say that isDerivedFrom(e0, David) this is fine with the current definition but might not be clear.
> Suggested resolution:
> Add the following statement: "Note, that isDerivedFrom can also include agents. For example, isDerivedFrom(e0, David).
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 11:10:34 UTC

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