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 17:21:09 -0800
Message-ID: <4F307C85.8040207@oracle.com>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Tim -

I also saw your other note to Luc and Paolo.  I would suggest, based on 
your logic, that your proposal of "involve" is replaced with 
"*participate*" and then somehow also add the decoration of whether it's 
/active/ or /passive/ participation.

I think involve is used (at least colloquially) in vague ways... like 
"involved" can mean "complex" or "complicated" in some contexts, etc.

Best.

On 2/6/12 5:09 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Hi, Paolo,
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>   I am not sure I understand. The term "relation" is entirely standard in data modelling,
> I would say because we are not creating a metamodeling language like UML or ERD. We're only making a model.
> So we shouldn't be using the general term for what we're doing.
>
>> 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?
> Acknowledged. Time is short.
> However, time spent making this model easier to understand is worthwhile.
>
> PROV is offering a very limited set of relations, and I find the disparity in breadth to be dissonant.
> In talking about the model with others, I have found that they agree.
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
>> --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 Tuesday, 7 February 2012 01:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT