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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:05:22 -0500
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1D59B77-04AF-46ED-A803-0630A07D2028@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To follow up on the discussions we had in the telecon.

I agree with Stian on votes and reasons for the votes.

except that Derivation, Association are +1 because they qualify entity-entity relations with core concepts (Activities and Agents).
additional reason to -1 the rest of proposal 3 because they are relatively arbitrary collections of special cases of the core DM concepts.

-Tim



On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 14:38, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
> +1
> 
>> 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.
> 
> -1 - these are relations between and mainly based on the primitives
> mentioned above.
> 
> 
>> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
>> discourse
> 
> -1 - just a relationship between entities, similar to prov:type and
> prov:role attributes.
> 
> 
>> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
>>             This includes Account Record.
> 
> +1
> 
> (But of course you are free to talk about a record as an entity if you
> want to do meta provenance)
> 
> However, I believe that *Account* -does- belong to the universe of
> discourse and should be identifiable.
> 
> 
> 
>> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse
> 
> +1 (We talk about things using entities)
> 
> 
>> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse
> 
> +1
> 
>> 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
> 
> .. although attribute values might be references to something which
> just happens to be an entity - so it is more that the attributes
> themselves do not belong to the universe of discourse.
> 
> entity(luc)
> entity(car, [ex:owner=luc] )
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 23:06:30 UTC

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