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: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:36:44 +0000
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <46CC0045-0347-436D-A261-EB3B4A2395DC@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
My responses reflect the way these are currently handled in the semantics draft, where I interpret "belong to the universe of discourse" as "is an Object".  There are currently four kinds of objects in the semantics: Entity, Agent, Activity, Event.

> 
> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
> 
+1.  (THis implies Agents are also.)

> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, 
> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of 
> discourse
> 

+1

> 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.
> 

I haven't tried to model these yet, so 0.  But, in most cases these seem to me like they should be assertions that relate objects but aren't objects themselves.  

> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of 
> discourse
> 

-1.  They're relations among objects.

> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
>             This includes Account Record.

+1 - with the caveat that we might want to allow for this if we want to handle meta-provenance (e.g., PROV-DM records describing the provenance of other PROV-DM records).  We could agree that for the sake of making progress we table the issue of meta-provenance.

> 
> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse

Things are currently not mentioned in the formal semantics; +1 as long as it's OK for me to use them as part of the model.


> 
> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse

+1.  I view these as out of the scope of formalization.

> 
> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of 
> discourse.

+1

> 
> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse.
> 
> 

+1.  (I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I agree that we do not need to introduce new attribute-related objects.  Attributes can have values that are ids of other objects, which should be enough.)

--James
-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:37:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:52 GMT