- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:21:04 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Luc. Do you consider Derivation an QualifiedInvolvement / Event? In that case, the QualifiedInvolvement should reference the Activity that caused the derived Entity. And that same Activity could be referenced by multiple Derivation QualifiedInvolvement / Events. If that sounds reasonable to you, I think I could be happy with that. Regards, Tim On Jan 27, 2012, at 3:06 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim > > On 01/26/2012 11:09 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:29 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Graham, >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> I'm inclined to say not, but I'm not sure I understand the proposal >>>> >>> Can I turn the proposal into a question: in the prov-o ontology, I think we >>> are going to have a class QualifiedDerivation (TBC). An instance of QualifiedDerivation, >>> will it be an object of the universe of discourse? >>> >> Yes. But only because a QualifiedDerivation is an Activity (though others disagree on this). >> >> > > I don't think it's the case at all. A given activity may be the cause of many derivations, > and vice-versa a given derivation may be due to 1 or more derivations. > For this reason, I don't think a QualifiedDerivation is an Activity. > > Luc >> -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 Friday, 27 January 2012 14:21:44 UTC