Fwd: Definition of role

>From Graham

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

Begin forwarded message:

From: Graham Klyne <gklyne@googlemail.com<mailto:gklyne@googlemail.com>>
Date: 31 May 2012 22:09:56 GMT+01:00
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: Definition of role

As I said previously, it's technically very similar, but the intuitions associated with "role" seem closer to me. But it's just a name. prov:type would function too.

#g

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

To answer your question, we also have prov:type.
So what's the difference?

Luc

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 31 May 2012, at 18:03, "Graham Klyne" <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk<mailto:graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>> wrote:

> On 31/05/2012 17:17, Miles, Simon wrote:
>> Hello Graham,
>>
>>> From today's discussion, that's what I thought you meant, but why isn't that just subtyping of relations, which I believe we already allow?
>
> I feel I'm missing something here ... I thought they (roles) were *the* mechanism for subtyping relations (in DM).
>
> So, yes, it is subtyping of relations.
>
> #g
> --
>
>> thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> Dr
Simon Miles
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>
>> accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations:
>> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/
>>
________________________________

>> From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk<mailto:graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>]
>> Sent: 31 May 2012 17:11
>> To: W3C provenance WG
>> Subject: Definition of role
>>
>> Following today's teleconference, this came to me:
>>
>> [[
>> A role is a restriction on a relationship between entities, agents and/or
>> activities, which qualifies the nature of the relationship.
>> ]]
>>
>> I think that says what's needed.  But it does need supporting by some examples.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>

>