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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:40:26 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2ab20ef9c590143ba4e83852c1821755nB68eY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EDF267A.7050006@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya,

On 12/07/2011 01:46 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/185
>
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> Hi,
> The following are my comments about Section 3 of the PROV-DM as on Nov 28:
>
> 1. Why should actedOnBehalfOf be included and not actedOnItsOwn? Also, actedUnderDirectionOf, actedUnderSupervisionOf etc.? Its an application-specific property that should not be included in PROV-DM core or PROV-O.
>
> 2. Why only chains of responsibility - what about chains of authorization, supervision etc.? Again these seem to be domain-specific issues that are out of place in DM.
>
>    

I think that's exactly what is intended.  The example in
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-responsibility
shows examples of delegation and contractual relation.

The precise nature  of the relation actedOnBehalfOf is indeed 
domain-specific and is captured by a prov:type.

To clarify the document, we could add a paragraph in section 5 (and 
possibly in section 3) to make this explicit.

How does it sound?

Cheers,
Luc

> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 08:40:54 UTC

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