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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:44:45 +0200
Message-ID: <E1351F5B-417B-4B52-8E22-B3B788BEED0F@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Looking at the definition of isControlledBy this is what I think participates means. 

I would think that controlled by has a stronger meaning than its current definition but I can't articulate it :-) so I'll leave it at that.

Paul


On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a few questions/comments about this notion of participation.
> 
> 1. Are we then saying the following?
>       participates(pe,x) if  uses(pe,x) or isControlledBy(pe,x)
> 
> 2. Paul, what do you mean by more general version of control?  Do you 
> mean more
>     than the above?  If yes, can you clarify?
> 
> 3. Satya, what do you mean by 'plays some other role in a Process 
> execution'?
>     is it control? something else? is it role as defined in the 
> specification draft?
> 
> 4. Do you want 'participates' to be something that is inferred, or 
> something that
>     is asserted, or both?
> 
> 5. Jim Myers also suggested something along the lines of:
> 
>      if participates(pe,x)  and ivpOf(x,y)  then participates(pe,y)
> 
>    Is it also in line with what you think participation is.
> 
> Regards,
> Luc
> 
> On 07/27/2011 07:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> +1 for participation being with respect to agents and being a more general version of control.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:19, Stephan Zednik<zednis@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I would argue against Participation as a parent property of
>>> isGeneratedBy.  I do not think that being the result of a process
>>> execution entails participation.  Does a cake participate in getting
>>> baked?  Does 'book now owned by person b' participate in getting sold
>>> from person A to person B?
>>> 
>>> For that matter, I am not sure I am happy with Participation as a parent
>>> property of isUsedBy.  When I think of participation I think of agents.
>>> Agents participate, non-agents get used.  If a thing with no agency is
>>> acted upon in a process execution, is it participating?
>>> 
>>> I would agree that Participation is a parent property to
>>> isControlledBy.  It would seem logical to argue that an agent that
>>> controls a process execution, participates in the process execution.
>>> 
>>> --Stephan
>>> 
>>> On 7/26/2011 7:29 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> 
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model]
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/49
>>>> 
>>>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>> 
>>>> Participation is a property linking BOB with Process execution,where BOB isUsedBy or isGeneratedBy or plays some other role in a Process execution.
>>>> 
>>>> This definition makes participation a parent property of both isUsedBy and isGeneratedBy properties. Also, this helps cover scenarios where BOB helps in execution of a process but is not consumed by or generated by process execution (it can be re-used in another process execution)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Wednesday, 27 July 2011 07:35:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT