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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:17:02 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|4917b43886b11613ffc28e302b9a4221nB7AH508L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EE08E9E.1070502@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

Responses interleaved.

On 12/07/2011 02:11 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-194: Section and Section (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/194
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product:
> Hi,
> 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.?

Are you questioning the arity of the relation?
Would you like


where ag2* represents multiple  subordinates, and ag1* multiple 
responsible agents, for a given activity?

Agent creation/destruction is dealt with by generation/usage.

I would have thought that "monitoring" was an another application 
specific subtyping of actedOnBehalfOf.

> --------------
> Section Derivation Record
> 1. "the transportation of a person from London to New-York"
> Comment: What is derived from what in the above example?

Luc in New York derived from Luc in London.
> 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?

If you want to say, for e.g. steps=2.

I don't think this is a precise record of derivation since you don't how 
e1 was involved in this derivation.

> 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?
Yes, set unions. We need to make it explicit.

I don't understand your questions, can you give illustrations?

> 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 10:17:31 UTC

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