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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-384 (prov-role-in-attribution): prov:role in attribution or not? [prov-dm]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 11:48:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoq_rJhX_JhHpdTyB-pd4EcVckPOZigEzkPH6oF8OK2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

It's unclear to me if attribution has an underlying activity. If we
agree on that then the definition falls out and we should could use
prov:role with respect to activity.

I guess the argument could be that there is always an activity that
links the agent to an entity in the end. Is that what we say in the
end?

Thanks
Paul

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-384 (prov-role-in-attribution): prov:role in attribution or not? [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> In the example,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#anexample-attribution,
> we write:
> wasAttributedTo(tr:WD-prov-dm-20111215, ex:Paolo, [prov:role="editor"])
>
>
> But in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-attribute-role
> we say:
> The attribute prov:role denotes the function of an entity with respect to an activity, in the context of a usage, generation, association, start, and end.
>
>
> So,
> 1. Do we want to accept prov:role in Attribution?
>  (or, it's not a prov:role but prov:type we should use?)
>
> 2. If yes, does it mean the definition of prov:role needs to be changed?  where is the activity?
>
> 3. Should we have an optional activity in Attribution?
>
> Luc
>
>
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2012 09:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 May 2012 09:49:03 GMT