Re: PROV-ISSUE-192: Section 5.3.2.1 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

Hi Satya,

I don't understand your comment. We use 'for example', 'may,' 'could' 
... to describe
a hypothetical scenario/application. The only generalization is that we 
*may* want to
express a notion of responsibility.

Can you clarify?

Luc

On 12/07/2011 02:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-192: Section 5.3.2.1 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/192
>
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> Hi,
> The following are my comments for Section 5.3.2.1 of the PROV-DM (as on Nov 28):
>
> Section 5.3.2.1
> 1. "For example, a programmer and a researcher could both be associated with running a workflow, but it may not matter what programmer clicked the button to start the workflow while it would matter a lot what researcher told the programmer to do so. Another example: a student publishing a web page describing an academic department could result in both the student and the department being agents associated with the activity, and it may not matter what student published a web page but it matters a lot that the department told the student to put up the web page. So there is some notion of responsibility that needs to be captured."
>
> Comment: There is no reason to assign more importance to researcher or department versus the programmer or student - these are purely application-specific interpretations and cannot be generalized. A simple counter-example is, "there was error on the Web page", which student is responsible for adding content to the Web page.
>
> 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 Thursday, 8 December 2011 09:58:29 UTC