Re: PROV-ISSUE-258 (TLebo): consolidate Association / Responsibility / Affiliation [prov-dm]

Hi Tim,

Are you suggesting that we have single relation xxx -> Agent,
which covers wasAssociatedWith, actedonBehalfOf, and wasAttributedTo?

I think it's an idea really worth exploring, I am not entirely sure of 
the implications
of this design decision, but it could reduce the number of relations.

I was thinking that as a minimum, all agent related notions, should be 
presented
in a single section, separate from the mechanics of 
Generation/Usage/Start/End of
Entity and Activity.

Luc

On 02/22/2012 05:34 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-258 (TLebo): consolidate Association / Responsibility / Affiliation [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/258
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> Now that we have EntityInvolvement, we can cite an Agent and give it a prov:role.
>
> Following the "Involvement design", the subject of an EntityInvolvement may be either an Entity or an Activity (or anything else, really).
>
> I have been wrestling with confusion among Association / Responsibility / Affiliation. It has been hard to remember which _type_ of subject is used in which.
>
> But does it matter what the subject (and its type) is? I don't think so. What matters is that we can point to an Agent, say that they were responsible (in some way), and qualify how they were responsible.
>
> By recognizing that we don't need to distinguish among the subject types to assert responsibility, we can consolidate the concepts, involvements, and Involvements that currently make an uninteresting distinction.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 15:24:22 UTC