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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-203: Proposal to amend definition and usage of Plan in PROV-DM [prov-dm]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:44:27 -0700
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5C50E6DD-F682-4874-906E-E8B1FA4331B0@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

>> PROPOSAL 2: Amend plan link record such that it is not a specialization of an activity association record.
>> 
>> Comment: I do not think we should define all plans as agents.  By our existing definition a plan is a "set of actions or steps ... to achieve some goal."  It is a description (usually in the form of a document) of the action or actions an agent should take to achieve a desired goal.
>>   
> 
> If the intent is to allow plans to be entities and not agents, it is not the only approach.
> I would like to suggest that:
> 1. Constraint http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#association-Agent
>   should not hold, since the notion of just being associated with an activity does not imply agency.
> 
> 2. Define agency independently from wasAssociatedWith.
> 
> If we do this, then I think we can keep hadPlan as a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
> 
> My rationale is to try and minimize the number of distinct concepts/relations in the model.

+1

I definitely do not think association it should infer agency.

--Stephan


Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 23:45:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC