- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:15:50 +0000
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4F210BB6.2050803@cs.man.ac.uk>
Hi, Please consider the following vote instead of the email I sent yesterday. +1 for proposal 1 +1 for proposal 2 +1 for association and responsibility chain in proposal 3, and +0 for the rest in proposal 3 0 for proposal 4 +1 for proposal 5 0 for proposal 6 +1 for proposal 7 +1 for proposal 8 +1 for proposal 9 Thanks, khalid On 25/01/2012 16:09, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not sure if I made up my mind regarding all the proposals. But > for now, I am inclined to include Entities, Activities, Usage, > Generation, Association and Responsibility chains as part of the > universe of discourse. Other concepts and relationships seem not to > have a direct mapping to the universe of discourse, so I am not sure > if they should be part of it. > > In other words: > +1 for proposal 1 > +1 for proposal 2 > +1 for association and responsibility chain in porposal 3, and +0 for > the rest in proposal 3 > +0 for the rest of proposal 4 > > Thanks, khalid > > On 24/01/2012 13:56, Luc Moreau wrote: >> All, >> >> Paul and I have a strong desire to resolve the issue related to >> identifiers before F2F2. >> >> For information, we agreed on the following last week: >> / *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by >> all participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" >> and otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either >> reusing an existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for >> the objects described." (intent) / >> >> So, the next challenge (ISSUE-225) is to agree on the objects that >> belong to universe of discourse. >> To facilitate the call on Thursday, we are putting forward a series >> of proposals. Can >> you express your support or not in the usual manner. On Thursday we >> will discuss >> proposals for which we didn't reach consensus. >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. >> >> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, >> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of >> discourse >> >> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains, >> Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation, >> Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After >> removal belong to the universe of discourse. >> >> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of >> discourse >> >> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse >> This includes Account Record. >> >> Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse >> Note >> >> Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse >> >> Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of >> discourse. >> >> Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 08:16:52 UTC