- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:36:28 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: "Groth, P.T." <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Er...nothing prevents you from saying an entity is used by an activity. I agree with you shout wasAssociatedWith. The question here was about wasStartedBy which is different, no? Paul On Feb 6, 2012, at 22:44, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > In the email example, > > What is it about "used" that prevents us from saying that the week-long debate "used" the email? > > Is it because we wouldn't be able to distinguish this "cause" from the other instances of energy, network traffic, reading time etc. that were also used during the debate? > > I say let "wasAssociatedWith" do what it was intended - to assign responsibility to agents. > > If we strip the agency inference from "wasAssociatedWith", I suggest we rename it to "causedBy" that can point to an entity (and thus optionally an agent) > > Regards, > Tim > > > On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > >> The result of our discussion are two possible proposals for resolving >> this issue. >> >> 1) wasStartedBy is between activity and entity. Instead of activity and >> agent. wasStartedBy is no longer a specialization of wasAssociatedWith. >> The concern is that "common sensically" there is an implication of >> "agency"/responsibility in wasStartedBy >> >> 2) No change. But the implication is that "email" could automagically >> become and "agent" >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 05:39:20 UTC