Re: PROV-ISSUE-106 (dgarijo): Accounts are missing in the document [Formal Model]

Hi,
That is an interesting question too:
if we use named graphs, it will be inmediate, although I like other
approaches as in OPMO,
having a explicit relationship "account" where the domain is the item
belonging to the account and
the range the account instance.

This 2 possibilities can solve the problem, I think.

Best,
Daniel

2011/9/28 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for raising this issue. I'd like to add the question:
> "How do we find all the assertions that belong to a given account"
> and associated to this issue is the question of name scoping introduced in
> PROV-DM.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
> On 09/28/2011 05:17 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-106 (dgarijo): Accounts are missing in the document [Formal
>> Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/106<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/106>
>>
>> Raised by: Daniel Garijo
>> On product: Formal Model
>>
>> Account definition is missing in the formal model document, diagrams,
>> ontology and examples.
>> This issue is also a reminder to discuss how we should model them: as a
>> separate entity or as a subclass of Provenance Container.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>