Re: PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]

Hi Satya,
I note you indicate this issue can be closed.  I am closing it now.

A further few comments interleaved.

On 02/11/2012 12:56 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> A couple of points w.r.t section 5.3.3.1 for "responsibility record" 
> in DM-TPWD :
> 1. I understand that actedOnBehalfOf is to "promote take-up" - this 
> brings up an old (but key) issue (also bought up by Paul on Dec 7th), 
> how do we decide what should be included in a "core" PROV model. We 
> can easily add many more similar properties to "promote take-up" and 
> end up with an unwieldy "core" model. I think we need to consider 
> whether it makes sense to add "short-cut" constructs in a distinct 
> "core+extended" model to "promote take-up" than to "clutter" the 
> "core" model.
>

I don't see how actedOnBehalfOf clutters the core model.  There is 
nothing equivalent to it, and it can capture all the variants
you suggested by means of subtyping.  If there is a suggestion for a 
better name for this relation, it should be put forward.

> In PROV-O we are planning to use a "core" + "extension" approach.
>
> 2. The notion of "subordinate" and "responsible" Agent is not captured 
> in the ASN for actedOnBehalfOf. If this notion is important and should 
> be followed by provenance applications, it should be made clear in ASN.

I don't understand this.  What do you mean by 'not captured'?

Luc

>
> Overall, I am fine with closing this specific issue, since the first 
> point needs to raise separately and the second point may require 
> raising a new issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>     On 12/07/2011 01:46 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>         PROV-ISSUE-185: Section 3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/185
>
>         Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>         On product: prov-dm
>
>         Hi,
>         The following are my comments about Section 3 of the PROV-DM
>         as on Nov 28:
>
>         1. Why should actedOnBehalfOf be included and not
>         actedOnItsOwn? Also, actedUnderDirectionOf,
>         actedUnderSupervisionOf etc.? Its an application-specific
>         property that should not be included in PROV-DM core or PROV-O.
>
>         2. Why only chains of responsibility - what about chains of
>         authorization, supervision etc.? Again these seem to be
>         domain-specific issues that are out of place in DM.
>
>
>
>     I think that's exactly what is intended.  The example in
>     http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-responsibility
>     shows examples of delegation and contractual relation.
>
>     The precise nature  of the relation actedOnBehalfOf is indeed
>     domain-specific and is captured by a prov:type.
>
>     To clarify the document, we could add a paragraph in section 5
>     (and possibly in section 3) to make this explicit.
>
>     How does it sound?
>
>     Cheers,
>     Luc
>
>         Thanks.
>
>         Best,
>         Satya
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>

-- 
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