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

Re: Votes (deadline Thursday noon, GMT): ISSUE-225, objects in the Universe of discourse

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:19:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DeXYc24mEaGG7G5bkBNmPEe=SsWMnmAuyhnmq0NvUEBYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
ok then :)

2012/1/24 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> **
> Hi Daniel,
> I had left the call by then. I am not claiming that the proposals here
> were all discussed
> yesterday, and vice-versa that all you discussed yesterday is reflected in
> the proposals.
> There are other issues with accounts, which need to be taken into ...
> account.
> Luc
>
> On 01/24/2012 02:09 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
> Hi Luc,
> Accounts are missing. According to what we discussed yesterday, they
> should be part of the
> universe of discourse.
>
> If you consider accounts as Entities, then they would be included in
> proposal 1 (along with Agents),
> but some people argued that there could be cases of Accounts not being
> Entities, so that's why I ask.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> 2012/1/24 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
>> All,
>>
>> Paul and I have a strong desire to resolve the issue related to
>> identifiers before F2F2.
>>
>> For information, we agreed on the following last week:
>> *    *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all
>> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and
>> otherwise)     SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an
>> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects
>> described." (intent) *
>>
>> So, the next challenge (ISSUE-225) is to agree on the objects that belong
>> to universe of discourse.
>> To facilitate the call on Thursday, we are putting forward a series of
>> proposals. Can
>> you express your support or not in the usual manner.   On Thursday we
>> will  discuss
>> proposals for which we didn't reach consensus.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>>
>> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
>> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
>> discourse
>>
>> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains,
>> Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation,
>> Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After
>> removal belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
>> discourse
>>
>> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
>>             This includes Account Record.
>>
>> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse
>>   Note
>>
>> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse
>>
>> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of
>> discourse.
>>
>> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 Tuesday, 24 January 2012 14:20:01 UTC

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