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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:06:52 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2938a873b77adeec656386a3b5656a0co0Q86y08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F225B1C.8020309@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim

On 01/26/2012 11:09 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:29 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>>> 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'm inclined to say not, but I'm not sure I understand the proposal
>> Can I turn the proposal into a question: in the prov-o ontology, I think we
>> are going to have a class QualifiedDerivation (TBC). An instance of QualifiedDerivation,
>> will it be an object of the universe of discourse?
> Yes. But only because a QualifiedDerivation is an Activity (though others disagree on this).

I don't think it's the case at all. A given activity may be the cause of 
many derivations,
and vice-versa a given derivation may be due to 1 or more derivations.
For this reason, I don't think a QualifiedDerivation is an Activity.

> -Tim

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 Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 08:07:30 UTC

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