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

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

From: Reza B'Far (Oracle) <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:07:45 -0800
Message-ID: <4F305D41.50302@oracle.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
IF folks converge on the need for an alternative, then I think 
"association" is a good choice, particularly given its usage in UML.  
There are also specializations of association that we could use.

On 2/6/12 2:55 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 23:11:52 GMT

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