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

Re: PROV ISSUE-206 some possible proposals

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:36:28 +0000
Message-ID: <19F5A7C4-C307-4AAC-9B2D-9D08C20E0FC3@vu.nl>
CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Er...nothing prevents you from saying an entity is used by an activity. I agree with you shout wasAssociatedWith. The question here was about wasStartedBy which is different, no?

Paul 

On Feb 6, 2012, at 22:44, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> In the email example,
> 
> What is it about "used" that prevents us from saying that the week-long debate "used" the email?
> 
> Is it because we wouldn't be able to distinguish this "cause" from the other instances of energy, network traffic, reading time etc. that were also used during the debate?
> 
> I say let "wasAssociatedWith" do what it was intended - to assign responsibility to agents.
> 
> If we strip the agency inference from "wasAssociatedWith", I suggest we rename it to "causedBy" that can point to an entity (and thus optionally an agent)
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 
>> The result of our discussion are two possible proposals for resolving
>> this issue.
>> 
>> 1) wasStartedBy is between activity and entity. Instead of activity and
>> agent. wasStartedBy is no longer a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
>> The concern is that "common sensically" there is an implication of
>> "agency"/responsibility in wasStartedBy
>> 
>> 2) No change. But the implication is that "email" could automagically
>> become and "agent"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 05:39:20 GMT

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