Re: PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm]

Hi, Paolo,

On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:

> Tim,
>  I am not sure I understand. The term "relation" is entirely standard in data modelling,

I would say because we are not creating a metamodeling language like UML or ERD. We're only making a model.
So we shouldn't be using the general term for what we're doing.

> as well as in set theory. "association" is used instead in UML and I wouldn't object to that. But why do we need to spend time looking for alternatives?

Acknowledged. Time is short.
However, time spent making this model easier to understand is worthwhile.

PROV is offering a very limited set of relations, and I find the disparity in breadth to be dissonant.
In talking about the model with others, I have found that they agree.

-Tim



> 
> --Paolo
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/6/12 9:32 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>> 
>> I am keen to replace 'relation' (and 'element') by more appropriate names.
>> 
>> I am not sure why 'involvement'?  involvement in what?
>> 
>> How appropriate is it for alternateOf?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Luc
>> 
>> On 06/02/12 21:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/237
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>> 
>>> I propose to rename "Relation" in PROV-DM to "Involvement" because "Relation" is too broad and a provenance interchange should limit itself to how agents, activities, and entities were involved with one another as the lead to some result.
>>> 
>>> Relations other than involvements should be out of scope for provenance interchange (and seem to be already be handled with the attribute-values).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
> 
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 01:14:06 UTC