W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-258 (TLebo): consolidate Association / Responsibility / Affiliation [prov-dm]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 17:32:32 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <176D4A4B-293D-47F5-BC85-FD5B699DC6F7@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Are you suggesting that we have single relation xxx -> Agent,
> which covers wasAssociatedWith, actedonBehalfOf, and wasAttributedTo?

I think it would be easiest to argue for an xxx that would replace wasAssociatedWith and wasAttributedTo.
Adding actedOnBehalfOf to xxx might be a harder sell.

The AgentInvolvement could easily cover the qualification of all three binary relations, being distinguishable by the type of the subject (Activity, Entity, and Agent)

> 
> I think it's an idea really worth exploring, I am not entirely sure of the implications
> of this design decision, but it could reduce the number of relations.

Reducing the number of relations, and avoiding confusion about a small distinction (attribution, association) are my two goals for this ISSUE.

> 
> I was thinking that as a minimum, all agent related notions, should be presented
> in a single section, separate from the mechanics of Generation/Usage/Start/End of
> Entity and Activity.

I think this would be useful.

-Tim

> 
> Luc
> 
> On 02/22/2012 05:34 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-258 (TLebo): consolidate Association / Responsibility / Affiliation [prov-dm]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/258
>> 
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: prov-dm
>> 
>> Now that we have EntityInvolvement, we can cite an Agent and give it a prov:role.
>> 
>> Following the "Involvement design", the subject of an EntityInvolvement may be either an Entity or an Activity (or anything else, really).
>> 
>> I have been wrestling with confusion among Association / Responsibility / Affiliation. It has been hard to remember which _type_ of subject is used in which.
>> 
>> But does it matter what the subject (and its type) is? I don't think so. What matters is that we can point to an Agent, say that they were responsible (in some way), and qualify how they were responsible.
>> 
>> By recognizing that we don't need to distinguish among the subject types to assert responsibility, we can consolidate the concepts, involvements, and Involvements that currently make an uninteresting distinction.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 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 Saturday, 3 March 2012 22:33:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT