- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:22:05 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4E2D51DD.20601@ncl.ac.uk>
Hi Paul, I have no objection in principle, however I am wondering whether "constrained" is not really "specialized" in the examples you mention? If so, then may I suggest that we wait until the "extensions mechanisms" thread begins and pick this up again? -Paolo > There are a number of commonly used provenance relations in particular for the web that are not in the model. For practical use > and uptake, it would be good to have definitions of these in the provenance model. These concepts should be defined in terms of > the already existing "core" concepts. Below I list several and their definitions along with some justification for their > introduction. Note, what these allow are simple provenance assertions that are compatible with the more complex model that we have > been devising. > > > * isQuoteOf > A quote. Specifically, it represents a characterized entity that is part of another characterized entity. > > A constrained version of isRevisionOf > > seehttp://daringfireball.net/2011/07/attribution_and_credit > > * isAttributedTo > > Represents that a characterized identity was the product of an agent or can be attributed to that agent. > > A constrained version of isDerivedFrom > > seehttp://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/06/27/the-importance-of-provenance/ > > * isSummaryOf > > Represents a characterized entity that is a synopsis or abbreviation of another entity. > > constrained version of isDerivedFrom > > * original-source > Represents a characterized entity in which another characterized entity first appeared. > > A constrained version of isDerivedFrom > > seehttp://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?answer=191283 >
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 11:22:43 UTC