- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:19:39 -0800
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 8, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi All, > > There are two kinds of records between activity and Agent: Record or relation? > > wasAssociatedWith is there to capture some associate between an agent and an activity. I think this term is too broad and the term associated does not carry the semantics of what we are trying to say with this relation in prov. > > Whereas there's actedOnBehalf of to describe something with some more light weight notion of responsibility. actedOnBehalf is between an Activity and an Agent? Or an Agent and another Agent? - 10 to both for reasons I have stated before. I propose that actedOnBehalfOf should be a qualifier on a wasControlledBy relation. It should be a relation between a qualified wasControlledBy (e.g. Control in PROV-O) and an Agent. --Stephan > > cheers, > Paul > > Stephan Zednik wrote: >> 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 19:20:27 UTC