W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

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

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 02:11:21 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RY6yf-0007MG-6N@tibor.w3.org>

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


Raised by: Satya Sahoo
On product: 

The following are my comments for Sections and Section of the PROV-DM (as on Nov 28):

Section 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 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?


Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 02:11:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC