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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-182 (TLebo): stronger name for "wasAssociatedWith" [prov-dm]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:19:39 -0800
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6E42510E-8757-449E-A75E-3EF91BE9F182@rpi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>

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

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