- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:00:33 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 14:38, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. +1 > Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, > Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of > discourse +1 > 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. -1 - these are relations between and mainly based on the primitives mentioned above. > Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of > discourse -1 - just a relationship between entities, similar to prov:type and prov:role attributes. > Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse > This includes Account Record. +1 (But of course you are free to talk about a record as an entity if you want to do meta provenance) However, I believe that *Account* -does- belong to the universe of discourse and should be identifiable. > Proposal 6: Things do no belong to the universe of discourse +1 (We talk about things using entities) > Proposal 7: Note/hasAnnotation do not belong to the universe of discourse +1 > Proposal 8: Event ordering constraints do not belong to the universe of > discourse. +1 > Proposal 9: Attributes do not belong to the universe of discourse. +1 .. although attribute values might be references to something which just happens to be an entity - so it is more that the attributes themselves do not belong to the universe of discourse. entity(luc) entity(car, [ex:owner=luc] ) -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:01:30 UTC