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

Re: Roles

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:37:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4E730ADA.6@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Luc and Paolo,

The Specialization of Entity into Role, or what I think of as 
"EntityAssumingAGivenRole", allows to get around this, at least in the 
case of use and generation. It is a sort of "weak" resource, that cannot 
exists on its own and that make sense only in the context of the entity 
it represents and the process execution it is connected to.

So, as you say Paolo in your email below, the qualifiers associated with 
Role in teh formal model belong to both sides: entity and process execution.

Khalid


On 15/09/2011 23:01, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> yes, and that was indeed in part my point: if the qualifiers logically 
> "belong" with both sides, then you can't play this game of "absorbing" 
> them on one side, can you.  They logically belong where the data and 
> the process meet, i.e., in neither "per se". There are bound to be 
> cases like this.
>
> -Paolo
>
> On 9/15/11 6:18 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> I don't understand why, in your example,
>>
>> wasGeneratedBy(e1 WITH {port="p1", order=1}, pe1,t1)
>>
>> the qualifier {port="p1", order=1}is "linked" with the entity,
>> it's also relevant to the pe ... after all, emitting data on port p1.
>>
>> Luc
>
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 08:38:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT