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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:54:02 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C15F0382-5DD0-4608-B3DD-2E2B4772BC39@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Currently, only Association (or Start, End, Usage, Generation) may use hadRole.

Looking back, I see that one of the prov-o examples violates this:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/Overview.html#qualifiedResponsibility
by putting a role on a Delegation.


Association, Attribution, and Delegation are the three ways to ascribe responsibility.

May we relax hadRole and permit its use on Attribution and Delegation?

(so, for this issue, +1; and a new issue to add it to Delegation, too :)

-Tim


On May 26, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 29 May 2012 13:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 May 2012 13:54:56 GMT