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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:05:34 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d3eed1eebd489d7efe2978182e9bd798o2ME5i08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F6C832E.4010500@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

I believe that points you raised in this issue were addressed in 
previous correspondence.
I propose to close the issue.

Regards,
Luc

On 12/07/2011 02:11 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/194
>
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product:
>
> Hi,
> The following are my comments for Sections 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 of the PROV-DM (as on Nov 28):
>
> Section 5.3.3.1 Responsibility Record
> 1. "...a responsibility record, written actedOnBehalfOf(id,ag2,ag1,a,attrs) in PROV-ASN, has the following constituents:
> * subordinate: an identifier ag2 for an agent record, which represents an agent associated with an activity, acting on behalf of the responsible agent;
> * responsible: an identifier ag1 for an agent record, which represents the agent on behalf of which the subordinate agent ag2 acts;"
>
> Comment: How is the chain of responsibility between multiple subordinate and responsible agents captured? The actedOnBehalfOf caters to a very specific use case and it is not clear why should the WG consider only this and not other Agent-Agent interactions? For example, Agent created an Agent, Agent destroyed an Agent, Agent monitored an Agent etc.?
>
> --------------
> Section 5.3.3.2 Derivation Record
> 1. "the transportation of a person from London to New-York"
>
> Comment: What is derived from what in the above example?
>
> 2. "We note that the fourth theoretical case of a precise derivation, where the number of activities is not known or asserted cannot occur."
>
> Comment: This is confusing. Comparing with precise-1 derivation record, the fourth case should be "asserter asserts that derivation is due to exactly n activities and all the details are asserted". Why this case cannot occur?
>
> 3. wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[prov:steps="1"] ∪ attrs)
>
> Comment: What does "U" in the above statement mean? Set union, that is, duplicates are deleted? What if multiple "precise-1 derivations" exist - would use of the U operator allow creation of an "imprecise" derivation with contradictory attribute-value pairs? More importantly, if all the details of a derivation are known by asserter, why would the asserter use the imprecise derivation?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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, 23 March 2012 14:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT