- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:22:32 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > ... > > In this way, it's a subtype of the unadorned used relation. Thanks, I didn't realize earlier that what you were describing during these discussions was the sub property approach. > > A similar exercise can be done for p2 and inputfile2. > > The above is presented with respect to the data model. In RDF, this could be a subproperty of prov:used as you suggest (assuming that's consistent with the way PROV-O handles these things; but I thought that's what qualified relation patterns were introduced to handle - I think either is OK for RDF, but PROV-O will quite reasonably want to promote a particular pattern). PROV-O promotes the "qualification pattern", with the understanding that it supports both. It is left to the reader to figure out and apply the sub property approach. -Tim > > #g > -- > > On 04/06/2012 09:30, Paul Groth wrote: >> Simon, Graham, >> >> I'm wondering how to model something like an argument to an >> application using this typing based approach. This is what we use >> roles for all the time in other provenance models. To be concrete, >> >> ex:prg1 a prov:Activity. >> ex:prg1 prov:used ex:file1. >> >> how do I define the ex:file1 is the first argument to prg1? Would I >> define a new relation? e.g >> >> ex:prg1 ex:firstArgument ex:file1. >> ex:firstArgument rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used. >> >> >> thanks >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>> I already provided one [1] ... I'm not sure I can do better. >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0447.html >>> >>> On 03/06/2012 17:46, Paul Groth wrote: >>>> Hi Graham, >>>> >>>> Can you suggest an alternative english language definition? I know you >>>> had wanted to proceed from a technical definition.... but I'm looking >>>> for a mechansim to get consensus. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 01/06/2012 18:01, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Trying to come to some route forward. If we can agree on the following >>>>>> English definition, then we can set about finding good relation names: >>>>>> >>>>>> A role is the function of an entity, activity, or agent in the context >>>>>> of a relation. The subject and object of relations may be given roles. >>>>> >>>>> -1 >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the role necessarily relates to a distinguished component of the >>>>> relation. E.g consider delegation: when agent A1 delegates role R to agent A2, >>>>> the role R here is not specific to A1 or A2, but represents a transfer of >>>>> responsibility between them. >>>>> >>>>> #g >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> tracker, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is ISSUE-384 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 17:24:38 UTC