Re: Detailed fedback on PROV-DM document

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 15:44, Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu> wrote:

> 22) Proposal for hadRoleIn:  This proposal is motivated by agent being a
> subclass of entity.  Should there be a relation between entity and activity
> that is subsumes (generalizes) used, generatedby, and wasAssociatedWith?  I
> think such a relation would allow us to state that an entity had to do with
> an activity but we don't yet know how exactly it was involved in the
> activity (eg whether it was an agent, or it was used by it, or generated by
> it, or...).

+1 - perhaps this is what "wasAssociatedWith" as a term really means.

This would also allow other blurrier associations as I mentioned in
and would fit with the (currently abstract) QualifiedInvolvement in
PROV-O [2].    Associated is weaker than involved in my book - so we
could change QI to just Association rather than making
wasInvolvedWith.


> I would propose to call this something like <entity hadARoleIn
> activity>.  We should think about how this aligns with what we now call
> "roles" (my choice of name for this new general relation is not a
> coincidence), so in the examples in PROV-DM document section 5.2.3 instead
> of "[prov:role="sponsor"]" perhaps we could see sponsorOf as a
> specialization of hadRoleIn and of wasAssociatedWith.

Uhu - I'm not sure about using "role" here - you just argued that this
property would be useful on its own when you do *not* know the role -
"hadARoleIn" immediately invites the question "Which role?".


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0169.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111213/#qualifiedinvolvement

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 15:33:21 UTC