- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:15:53 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 19:05, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > I'm not 100% sure that we need the prov:wasAssumedBy property. Assumption of > a Role is only one kind of contextualization that can occur in a provenance > document. AliceAsAuthor (with type Author) is simply a contextualization of > Alice. The rest of these are done using complementOf. I think that we should > explicitly say that role assignment is an intended use of complementOf, but > having a separate property is redundant, especially if we are trying to make > a consistent representation that requires minimal inference to understand. I would agree if it was not that we also have the "Role" concept in PROV-DM and other potential serialisation. If it's just snuck in as an entity subclass :Author and only have a weaker prov:wasComplementOf linking to the "real" entity , then we can't easily extract out again neither the entity nor the "role" if we were to go PROV-O -> PROV-DM. (If :Author is a subclass of prov:EntityInRole - then you could find all the classes of an entity which are also a subclass of prov:EntityInRole, but if the roled entity is a complement of 5 other entities, you can't pick one of them to put into the PROV-DM statements) We did in the telcon yesterday and last week agree that we'll try this explicit approach with EntityInRole and prov:wasAssumedBy for now. I think the jury is still out on prov:assumedRole vs. just subclassing. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 09:16:50 UTC