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: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:45:04 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC2302A556C7@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>

Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.

+1 - I expect use cases where multiple asserters have information about the same entities and activities

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

+1 - these seem more to be 'artifacts of the model' than activities to me, but I can see need as with activities to allow multiple asserters to talk about the same events,

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.

+0 - these seem like 'sub-class of' to me - having an identifier for the general relationship type along with the source and target seem to be enough to identify a particular relationship instance. +0 because they are still domain concepts and hence in the universe in that sense

Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of

+0 - These seem like they should be decided the same way as Proposal 3

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

+0 - I like the framing from other emails - accounts are something one could consider as an entity to bring them into the universe of discourse.

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

+0 - Things are boundary objects - objects in other universes of discourse that we want to connect to entities. I suspect that they should have identifiers, usually from those other universes, to make the connection, but agree that they are not in the provenance domain of discourse (we have entities precisely because one can't describe the provenance of things due to their lack of sufficient characterization).

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

+0 - same as account - almost anything could be characterized by an entity to pull it into the universe of discourse...

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

+0 - more relationships - same comments as on proposal 3, but these also have a flavor of being like things - time/order don't seem to be directly related to documenting what happened, but they are clearly boundary concepts - timestamps backwards from the asserted provenance indicate a problem.

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

+0 - also boundary concepts. While I don't know that we need URL style identifiers, I think we would want to know that your "blue" can be compared with mine (we might both want to specify http://pantone/blue/... But if we both just use "blue" in two accounts, I think we still want to be able to say that is more than a local identifier string in each account. +0 because I don't know how to translate that exactly into a vote on whether they are in/out of the universe...



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<mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 13:45:42 UTC

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