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

Re: [provo] Proposal for a Structure of the PROVO HTML Document

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:20:55 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e51a923e9f36c0fffc0e4fcddb09603bo24ML308L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F553C47.1080101@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Graham,

If we follow prov-dm logic:
   "The motivation for introducing agents in the model is to denote the 
agent's responsibility for activities"

If you don't need to assign responsibility in prov-dm, you don't need 
agents.
So, it's not unreasonable to have agents introduced with responsibility.

It does not change the fact that it's the third element of the trio, though.

Luc

On 05/03/12 21:59, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised by the proposed structure: I have come to see the 
> trio of artifact/entity, activity and agent as the kernel elements of 
> most of the defined provenance models, so it's surprising to see them 
> separated here.
>
> #g
> -- 
>
> On 05/03/2012 16:19, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Khalid,
>>
>> For information, Paolo and I have decided to restructure prov-dm 
>> (WD5) as follows,
>> in several components. The intent was to address Jun's comment on 
>> core vs common.
>>
>> - Activity, Entity, Events
>>
>> - Agency and Responsibility
>>
>> - Derivations
>> wasDerivedFrom, revision, quotation, original sources
>> - Alternate relations (title to be defined)
>> Alternate, Specialization
>> - Annotation
>> - Collections
>>
>> So, in other words, we'll drop the common/core. It would be good if 
>> it was not
>> used in the prov-o.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 22:21:35 GMT

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