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

Fair enough, but I guess I'd still think of associated as a generic relationship and make sure we identify the role as well as the source and target. I don't see people wanting to talk about association#3 versus the association of Jim with W3CProv in role contributor where those three things (two entities and the role) are in the universe of discourse (or perhaps role is more of a boundary concept ala my comments on attributes, etc.

Jim

From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:55 AM
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Votes (deadline Thursday noon, GMT): ISSUE-225, objects in the Universe of discourse

Hi Jim,



On 01/26/2012 01:45 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:

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


I don't think it's the case:
- an activity may be associated with an agent with different roles.
- e2 could be derived (precise derivation with activity a) from e1, multiple times, maybe because e1 is used by a several times.

Luc



--

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