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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-216 (TLebo): qualified wasAttributedTo? [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:30:49 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|077bd1f82337c57a43c87bb682ff1fa4o1MNUx08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F46CC29.2030107@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,
I have reassigned this issue the ontology.
I believe that you have implemented it and the issue can be closed.
Luc

On 17/01/12 23:08, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Thanks Daniel,
>
> Tim, Could you confirm and reassign to prov-o?
>
> Thanks,
> Luc
>
> On 17/01/12 11:28, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>> Hi Luc,
>> maybe this issue is more for the prov-o document than for prov-dm.
>> Currently, wasAttributedTo is binary. We should add a 
>> QualifiedInvolvement
>> for this relationship too in order to be able to add the set of 
>> optional attributes.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
>>
>>     Hi Tim,
>>
>>     Revisiting your request, I don't understand it.
>>     An attribution record already contains optional attribute-value
>>     pairs.
>>     What do you mean by qualified wasAttributedTo relation?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Luc
>>
>>
>>     On 01/16/2012 02:31 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Tim,
>>         This seems like a reasonable request.
>>         It looks like all our relations should have attributes.
>>         Luc
>>
>>         On 01/15/2012 04:37 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
>>         Tracker wrote:
>>
>>             PROV-ISSUE-216 (TLebo): qualified wasAttributedTo? [prov-dm]
>>
>>             http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/216
>>
>>             Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>             On product: prov-dm
>>
>>             Accounts will likely be associated to their asserters
>>             with the prov:wasAttributedTo binary relation.
>>
>>             Would the DM be able to have qualified wasAttributedTo
>>             relations?
>>
>>             I think that it would be a natural question for a
>>             consumer, upon hearing that "account x was from agent y",
>>             to want to ask about how, when, or in what situation
>>             agent y stated those things (e.g., under oath in a
>>             courtroom, on twitter 2am on a Friday night, etc).
>>
>>             Hopefully, the Qualified wasAttributedTo would follow the
>>             pattern of the varying "precisions" (i.e., granularity)
>>             for wasDerivedFrom, which may relate an activity that
>>             draws the Account to the asserter.
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Professor Luc Moreau
>>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
>>     l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 23:31:26 GMT

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