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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:55:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4F305A7C.4050708@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Tim,
   I am not sure I understand. The term "relation" is entirely standard in data modelling, as well as in set theory. "association" 
is used instead in UML and I wouldn't object to that. But why do we need to spend time looking for alternatives?

--Paolo



On 2/6/12 9:32 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> I am keen to replace 'relation' (and 'element') by more appropriate names.
>
> I am not sure why 'involvement'?  involvement in what?
>
> How appropriate is it for alternateOf?
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
> On 06/02/12 21:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/237
>>
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> I propose to rename "Relation" in PROV-DM to "Involvement" because "Relation" is too broad and a provenance interchange should limit itself to how agents, activities, and entities were involved with one another as the lead to some result.
>>
>> Relations other than involvements should be out of scope for provenance interchange (and seem to be already be handled with the attribute-values).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 23:02:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:55 GMT