- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:17 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Yes, I have no problem for agents to be source/destination of a derivation, but your example may introduce some confusion. Let me try and explain why. First, I think there is a missing "inference" in the specification. If there isDerivedFrom(e1,e0) holds, then there exists a process execution pe, and roles r0,r1, isGeneratedBy(e1,pe,r1) and use(pe,e0,r0) So, if I apply this to your example, isGeneratedBy(e0,pe,r1) and use(pe,David,r0) David may have been asserted to be an agent, or the agent nature of David can be inferred (as per definition of agent), but it's not because of its involvement in pe. It has to be in another process execution, right? Maybe, the example could become: isDerivedFrom(david-in-his-thirties, david-in-his-twenties). What do you think? Luc On 07/23/2011 04:36 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/42 > > Raised by: Paul Groth > On product: Conceptual Model > > Given that isDerivedFrom is between Bobs this by definition allows it to relate agents, it would nice for informative to mention this in the definition. > > For example, I would like to say that isDerivedFrom(e0, David) this is fine with the current definition but might not be clear. > > Suggested resolution: > > Add the following statement: "Note, that isDerivedFrom can also include agents. For example, isDerivedFrom(e0, David). > > > > > > > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 08:09:56 UTC