- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:46:17 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim, Revisiting your request, I don't understand it. An attribution record already contains optional attribute-value pairs. What do you mean by qualified wasAttributedTo relation? Thanks, Luc On 01/16/2012 02:31 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > This seems like a reasonable request. > It looks like all our relations should have attributes. > Luc > > On 01/15/2012 04:37 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-216 (TLebo): qualified wasAttributedTo? [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/216 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> Accounts will likely be associated to their asserters with the >> prov:wasAttributedTo binary relation. >> >> Would the DM be able to have qualified wasAttributedTo relations? >> >> I think that it would be a natural question for a consumer, upon >> hearing that "account x was from agent y", to want to ask about how, >> when, or in what situation agent y stated those things (e.g., under >> oath in a courtroom, on twitter 2am on a Friday night, etc). >> >> Hopefully, the Qualified wasAttributedTo would follow the pattern of >> the varying "precisions" (i.e., granularity) for wasDerivedFrom, >> which may relate an activity that draws the Account to the asserter. >> >> 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 Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:46:55 UTC