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: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:15:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4F210BB6.2050803@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

Please consider the following vote instead of the email I sent yesterday.

+1  for proposal 1
+1  for proposal 2
+1  for association and responsibility chain in proposal 3, and +0 for 
the rest in proposal 3
0    for proposal 4
+1  for proposal 5
0    for proposal 6
+1  for proposal 7
+1  for proposal 8
+1  for proposal 9

Thanks, khalid

On 25/01/2012 16:09, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if I made up my mind regarding all the proposals. But 
> for now, I am inclined to include Entities, Activities, Usage, 
> Generation, Association and Responsibility chains as part of the 
> universe of discourse. Other concepts and relationships seem not to 
> have a direct mapping to the universe of discourse, so I am not sure 
> if they should be part of it.
>
> In other words:
> +1 for proposal 1
> +1 for proposal 2
> +1 for association and responsibility chain in porposal 3, and +0 for 
> the rest in proposal 3
> +0 for the rest of proposal 4
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
> On 24/01/2012 13:56, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 08:16:52 UTC

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