Re: PROV ISSUE-206 some possible proposals

On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 02:03, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I very much like this. What is it's unqualified form?
>> :flameWar prov:initiatedBy :anEmail .
> 
> Uhu.. but now you made a short-hand for a usage with a particular
> role. Do we want to go down that road? (you could argue the same for
> prov:hadPlan)


They seem to be isomorphic, and one is less verbose than the other.
As much as I like the generality



> 
> 
>> Are you saying that everything going in to in an activity must be either a responsible agent OR a non responsible thing BUT NOT BOTH?
> 
> No, sorry, that was not my intention. An agent might be used as a mere
> non-responsible entity (for instance the PortraitPhotography activity
> using the Person as the subject), *and* at the same time be a
> responsible agent (self portrait).  This is perfectly covered by what
> we have today, simply state both facts.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples#Self_portrait
> 
> 
> I have argued for the case that entities might be 'linked with' an
> activity without being used, and without having agent-like
> responsibility (wasAssociatedWith). This is the passiveInvolvement
> we've talked about in another thread with Reza.
> 
> I however feel that an entity can't be initiating an activity without
> either being used or be activelyInvolved with it (ie. agent), but I
> might be wrong, or this might not be important.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
>> That's some example. Too bad we're not collecting examples somewhere...
> 
> Given your kind request I have promptly deposited the example in the
> appropriate repositories :-)
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples#LibC_upgrade_affecting_program_execution
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/b9e12115bcba/ontology/components/wasAssociatedWith/libc.ttl


Thanks!

> 
> 
> 
>> So what property do you feel is missing that this example demands?
> 
> :exec prov:wasAssociatedWith :libc .
> 
> 
> except that it currently makes :libc an agent, which I'm not quite
> comfortable with in this context.
> 
> 
> That's the passive involvement, if you like. But if we introduce the
> notion of active and passive involvement, I feel that as an asserter I
> might not always be able to make the distinction. (For instance I
> might be watching your game play from afar, and not heard that Daniel
> shouted "Hit him! Hit him, so I just assert that he was 'involved'
> with the game)


Perhaps a disjoint union of Role: ActiveRole and PassiveRole would settle it?
One could assert Role, ActiveRole, or PassiveRole.

-Tim


> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>