- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:48:15 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:48:45 UTC
Hi Tim, there is something that is confusing me a bit: first you say that "an account is an Entity that was generated by an asserter during an assertion Activity", but then you call Accounts "AssertionActivities", which according to DM is not possible (since an Entity can't be an Activity). By reading your modeling, which looks good by the way, I think we should clarify whether the account is an activity or an entity. The impression that I got by reading the dm was that an account is just a wrapper, which are the named graphs ex:acc3_claims and ex:acc4_claims in your design example. The only problem that I see making Accounts specialization of Activities is that the attributes of the account may not be the same as the attributes of the Activity that created the account. Thus, it could be misleading IMO. Thoughts? Thanks, Daniel 2012/1/5 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> > prov-wg, > > I have been working on some discussion [1] that is relevant to modeling > Accounts in PROV-O. > > It is incomplete, but I think ready for some initial feedback. > > Modeling accounts is on the agenda for tomorrow's telecon [2], so I hope > this can provide some discussion material. > > Regards, > Tim > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_graphs_to_model_Accounts > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05 > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:48:45 UTC