Re: [dxwg] Qualified forms [RQF]

I understand the reasoning for the PROV authors to not want `hadRole` *across the board* but I can't agree with their logic for not allowing it for `Entity`/`Agent` relations. For `Delegation` as per the PROV mailing list reasoning @andrea-perego quotes, there is potential confusion about which `Agent` may have played a role, so this does, I think, reasonably derail `hadRole` for *across the board* use but consider illegal-in-PROV equivalence for `dct:creator`:

:Dataset_X a dcat:Dataset, prov:Entity ;
  prov:qualifiedAttribution [
    a prov:Attribution ;
    prov:agent :Agent_Y ;
    prov:hadRole ex:creator ;
  ] ;
There seems no issue with the *sense* of this, according to PROV, but only with potential confusion among `Agent`s that could be playing the role, as per the mainling list `Delegation` example. But there is no confusion here: how else can the `hadRole` in this example be interpreted other than it's a `prov:Role` that `:Agent_Y` is undertaking? No other `Agent`s are involved.

As long as the `Entity` is not able to undertake a role, and it can't according to PROV, then we are as safe in using `hadRole` here as the canonical examples about `Association` in the PROV-O documentation.

I vote we implement a `dcat:hadRole` that is designed specifically for `Entity`/`Agent` relations that deliberately plugs the PROV-O hole and we don't use something like `dcat:hadEntityAgentRole` or anything else. People will see this new `dcat:hadRole` in use and understand the direct correlation to `prov:hadRole`.

GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2018 10:33:00 UTC