Re: PROV-ISSUE-368 (no-responsibility-in-derivation): No responsibility in derivation [prov-dm]

I agree with this suggestion. While we have had a long debate about
quoting. I think there's an argument for simplicity here and if people
need more complex forms of quoting then they need to do this as an
extension.

cheers
Paul

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-368 (no-responsibility-in-derivation): No responsibility in derivation [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> We are having ongoing discussion about responsibility in derivations (see ISSUE-357 and ISSUE-352).
>
> In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.
>
> Instead of
>  wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,ag,attrs)
> we should write
>  wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,attrs)
>  and  wasAttributedTo(e2,ag)
>
>
> Instead of
>  wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs)
> we should write:
>  wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,attrs)
>  and  wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1)
>  and  wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2)
>
>
>
> We are not losing in expressivity, I believe, instead, we decouple components 2 and 3 in the data model.
>
> Furthermore, if we allow optional arguments in derivations,
> wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, attrs)
> they should also be allowed in quotation/original source/revision, to
> make these proper subrelations.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam

Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 10:47:31 UTC