W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-341 (revision-approver): revision approver - why? [prov-dm]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:44:16 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9691BE7B-CB64-462D-AB13-7CB509DA0806@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> The approver is not the asserter.  I don't understand what the problem is.

good point.

Then forget about accounts and my suggestion in the issue…

More generally, how should one model responsibility on derivations?

I closed this issue, as my concern is covered by ISSUE-356 (ongoing).

Regards,
Tim


> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 11 Apr 2012, at 19:53, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> It appears so.
>> 
>> What was the resolution to that?
>> Because the problem Simon describes is still in the draft.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> 
>>> Isn't it ISSUE-149 raised by Simon?
>>> 
>>> PS: the idea of removing agency from the Derivation component seems appealing!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science
>>> University of Southampton 
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>>> United Kingdom
>>> 
>>> On 10 Apr 2012, at 22:07, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-341 (revision-approver): revision approver - why? [prov-dm]
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/341
>>>> 
>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>> 
>>>> 4.3.2
>>>> 
>>>> "responsibility: an optional  identifier (ag) for the agent who approved the newer entity as a variant of the older;"
>>>> 
>>>> ^^^ this seems more appropriately modeled as an account, not stuck as part of the underlying model.
>>>> 
>>>> Revision should "just be", and if one wants to know who says that "it just is", we should use accounts to answer.
>>>> 
>>>> The same experience that we used to remove "agent asserting an account" from "account" should be reapplied to this parameter as well.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 17:45:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT