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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-127: Constraint id= participation (PROV DM and PROV ontology) [Data Model]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:38:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6wLc+bRY3U1J74X_oDQWTnVm9btCnx1wpqWGcMMh5wzVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc,
I agree that my specific point in this issue has been addressed. I am happy
for this issue to be closed.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Satya,
>
> Your example:
>
> "For example, a quality control inspector "qci1" on a factory floor is
> "involved" in production (PE instance "prod1") of "honda civic car" by
> observing the prod1 PE and taking notes. But qci1 is not linked to prod1 by
> "used" or "wasControlledBy" or "wasComplementOf" properties, but qci1 is a
> participant in prod1."
>
> was a key driver behind Yolanda's proposal of agent and activity relation,
> which is now implemented
> in the document.
>
> For your example, you would write wasAssociatedWith(prod1,qci1).
>
> I trust this answers your concern and we can close the issue.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> On 10/17/2011 01:25 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-127: Constraint id= participation (PROV DM and PROV ontology)
>> [Data Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/127<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/127>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: Data Model
>>
>> Hi,
>> The following constraint is defined for participation in the PROV-DM (in
>> mercurial fpwd head on Oct 16, 2011):
>> "Given two identifiers pe and e, respectively identifying a process
>> execution expression and an entity expression, the expression
>> hadParticipant(pe,e) holds if and only if:
>> a) used(pe,e) holds, or
>> b) wasControlledBy(pe,e) holds, or
>> c) wasComplementOf(e1,e) holds for some entity expression identified by
>> e1, and hadParticipant(pe,e1) holds some process execution expression
>> identified by pe."
>>
>>
>> Issue:
>> This constraint is not necessary for assertion or inferring a
>> participation property between an Entity instance and PE instance. The
>> current definition uses "involvement" to link an Entity instance with a PE
>> instance by "hadParticipant" relation, but "used" "wasControlledBy" and
>> "wasComplementOf" are not an exhaustive list of properties for defining
>> "involvement".
>>
>> For example, a quality control inspector "qci1" on a factory floor is
>> "involved" in production (PE instance "prod1") of "honda civic car" by
>>  observing the prod1 PE and taking notes. But qci1 is not linked to prod1
>> by "used" or "wasControlledBy" or "wasComplementOf" properties, but qci1 is
>> a participant in prod1.
>>
>> Suggestion is to remove this constraint completely since it is out of
>> scope of this WG to enumerate all possible "involvement" properties that
>> need be identified and listed to create this constraint.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:39:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC