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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:56:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6w2nLSus-khwyfMNHWKnJNtUkom57yB7TqZYOzBinSK8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,
A couple of points w.r.t section 5.3.3.1 for "responsibility record" in
DM-TPWD :
1. I understand that actedOnBehalfOf is to "promote take-up" - this brings
up an old (but key) issue (also bought up by Paul on Dec 7th), how do we
decide what should be included in a "core" PROV model. We can easily add
many more similar properties to "promote take-up" and end up with an
unwieldy "core" model. I think we need to consider whether it makes sense
to add "short-cut" constructs in a distinct "core+extended" model to
"promote take-up" than to "clutter" the "core" model.

In PROV-O we are planning to use a "core" + "extension" approach.

2. The notion of "subordinate" and "responsible" Agent is not captured in
the ASN for actedOnBehalfOf. If this notion is important and should be
followed by provenance applications, it should be made clear in ASN.

Overall, I am fine with closing this specific issue, since the first point
needs to raise separately and the second point may require raising a new
issue.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


On 12/07/2011 01:46 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/185<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/185>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> Hi,
>> The following are my comments about Section 3 of the PROV-DM as on Nov 28:
>>
>> 1. Why should actedOnBehalfOf be included and not actedOnItsOwn? Also,
>> actedUnderDirectionOf, actedUnderSupervisionOf etc.? Its an
>> application-specific property that should not be included in PROV-DM core
>> or PROV-O.
>>
>> 2. Why only chains of responsibility - what about chains of
>> authorization, supervision etc.? Again these seem to be domain-specific
>> issues that are out of place in DM.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think that's exactly what is intended.  The example in
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/model/**
> ProvenanceModel.html#record-**responsibility<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-responsibility>
> shows examples of delegation and contractual relation.
>
> The precise nature  of the relation actedOnBehalfOf is indeed
> domain-specific and is captured by a prov:type.
>
> To clarify the document, we could add a paragraph in section 5 (and
> possibly in section 3) to make this explicit.
>
> How does it sound?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>  Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2012 00:56:32 GMT

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