W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:57:11 -0400
Message-Id: <957D19C0-0504-4B3E-93F9-24020F976F8A@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
prov-wg,

I've drafted a response to Jacobo's comments at:

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR#ISSUE-651

Any comments welcome.

Regards,
Tim

On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/651
> 
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CABC+A3LHXh1r1BHqZR7eXqes8dRFKVg3A6oBB0F=mgUimL6r8g@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been looking at PROV-O and I intend to use or extend it for a
> project where we need provenance metadata for named rdf graphs. I have
> a “triple” of suggestions that come from vocabulary restrictions I
> have thought of for my own use, but since I see the vocabulary is
> still in a CR stage, I have decided to expose them for the case they
> might be included in the base vocabulary. However, I must say I am
> quite a newcomer into RDF and related technologies, so I might well be
> very wrong.
> 
> 1. I wonder if instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy
> instance of Activity could always be used to connect the original and
> obtained entities, even without further properties. This would make
> modeling more homogenous, which might make things easier for automated
> tools, and would be straightforward to add information about the
> activity if it was discovered in a later stage, without the need of
> removing triples. I think these advantages and the reduction of the
> vocabulary make up for the overhead in extra nodes.
> 
> 2. The existence of wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we
> already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity
> that led to the Entity. I am aware that without cardinality
> constraints between Activity and Entity, an activity can generate
> several Entities and therefore an Agent involved in an Activity is not
> necessarily involved in one of its generated Entities. But maybe this
> would be a reason to consider introducing cardinality constraints, as
> activities that generate several Entities can usually be divided into
> more specific Activities that only lead to one Entity. So Activities
> that generate several Entities could be modeled as a higher level
> resource that aggregates several activities. I know in this way you
> remove a term to introduce another one, but you get rid of the
> semantic overlapping and possible redundancy between wasAttributedTo
> and wasAssociatedWith.
> 
> 3. The unqualified relation actedOnBehalfOf, since it is independent
> of the activity, it becomes a general or "atemporal" property of the
> agent and should be better named actsOnBehalfOf.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jacobo Rouces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 13:57:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:23 UTC