- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:34:02 -0800
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 8, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Since "responsibility" is the distinguishing notion in agency (according to Yolanda's proposal), I think that "responsibility" should be included in the name of the relation. > > A possible counter proposal for "wasAssociatedBy": > > hadResponsibilityFor > > Jim Myers suggested "bearsResponsibilityFor". +1 --Stephan > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> >> PROV-ISSUE-182 (TLebo): stronger name for "wasAssociatedWith" [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/182 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> There was a reasonable support for renaming "wasAssociatedWith" to something with "a bit more meaning" that has not been reflected in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-activity-association >> >> The thread started at http://www.w3.org/mid/CDFD3D2D-6354-4618-BB05-B541B84DC5EB@ISI.EDU >> >> Jim Myers suggested "bearsResponsbilityFor" at http://www.w3.org/mid/3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC230299C0F8@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu >> >> Stephan Zednick suggests that "wasAssociatedWith" was too generic, by asking how it differed from "hadParticipation" in http://www.w3.org/mid/79C82866-807A-4FE0-8F60-90F7CAD955B0@rpi.edu and further argues for its weakness at http://www.w3.org/mid/4662AC25-B5A6-485D-9A7E-5180558AF724@rpi.edu >> >> I agree but didn't send anything to the list. >> >> Luc said we can raise issues against it (now?) http://www.w3.org/mid/EMEW3|f3b02401dcbcf60c395672bf886e967fnAKKN808L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|446DD0D9-0A95-4307-A7CB-43B55111CF83@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 17:34:52 UTC