Re: PROV-ISSUE-206: three proposals to vote on (deadline Jan 15th midnight GMT)

Hi,

On 11/01/2012 13:27, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The email below was sent just before Xmas. It's now time to try and 
> reach some decisions
> about it. Can you express your support for the following proposals in 
> the usual way.
> Deadline: Jan 15, midnight.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> On 12/21/2011 10:11 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-206 (agent-asserted-not-inferred): agents should not be 
>> inferred, and wasAssociatedWith should also work with entities [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/206
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>>
>>
>> Inference
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#association-agent 
>>
>> originates back from an agreement at F2F1, where we said that agents 
>> can be inferred from wasControlledBy.
>>
>> The inference was kept, and wasControlledBy replaced by 
>> wasAssociatedWith.
>>
>> However, I think this has undesirable consequences. For instance, in 
>> the example that follows constraint
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#wasStartedBy, 
>>
>> we see that an entity (a request to create an activity) is inferred 
>> to become
>> an agent because of the above inferences.
>>
>> There are many notions of agents out there, and we should go for 
>> minimum semantic commitment in prov-dm to facilitate adoption. 
>> Inferring agent is likely to be suspicious in some communities.
>>
>> Hence, proposal 1: remove inference association-agent from the document.
I am happy with removing the inference, but I think that the problem you 
identified above is coming from the example itself 
(http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#wasStartedBy), 
not from the inference.

In the example, the entity e represents a "request for creation". In 
other words, the entity e does not actually create the activity a2, 
rather it is the workflow engine that create a2. That is, 
wasStartedBy(a2,e) does not hold.
>>
>> Furthermore, for the example above to type correctly,
>>
>> proposal 2: allow wasAssociatedWith to relate an activity and an entity
+0
I guess this means that wasAssociatedWith will replace what in earlier 
versions was named hadParticipant.
What do we gain from specifying this relationship. I think having a 
property that associate activities to agents only, as opposed to 
entities, may be less confusing for users.

>>
>> proposal 3: allow two forms for wasAssociatedWith:
>>             wasAssociatedWith(activity, agent, plan, attributes)
>>                and
>>             wasAssociatedWith(activity, entity, attributes)

+0
The same argument as above.

Thanks, khalid
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>