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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:55:22 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <6DCEDFD4-E26C-4DB3-B9D4-BB22661EE932@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

Yes, It is currently handled in the ontology, so I closed the issue.

ISSUE-258 is related and asks for a consolidation of Attribution and Association (into one "Responsibility") while Responsibility would be renamed to something like "Delegation".

-Tim


 
On Feb 23, 2012, at 6:30 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 01:55:53 GMT

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