W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Definition of role

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:22:32 -0400
Cc: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D9DA42E7-EC9F-4995-BBF6-15420A56E1CC@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Graham,

On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> ...
> 
> In this way, it's a subtype of the unadorned used relation.

Thanks, I didn't realize earlier that what you were describing during these discussions was the sub property approach.

> 
> A similar exercise can be done for p2 and inputfile2.
> 
> The above is presented with respect to the data model.  In RDF, this could be a subproperty of prov:used as you suggest (assuming that's consistent with the way PROV-O handles these things;  but I thought that's what qualified relation patterns were introduced to handle - I think either is OK for RDF, but PROV-O will quite reasonably want to promote a particular pattern).

PROV-O promotes the "qualification pattern", with the understanding that it supports both. 
It is left to the reader to figure out and apply the sub property approach.

-Tim


> 
> #g
> --
> 
> On 04/06/2012 09:30, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Simon, Graham,
>> 
>> I'm wondering how to model something like an argument to an
>> application using this typing based approach. This is what we use
>> roles for all the time in other provenance models. To be concrete,
>> 
>> ex:prg1 a prov:Activity.
>> ex:prg1 prov:used ex:file1.
>> 
>> how do I define the ex:file1 is the first argument to prg1? Would I
>> define a new relation? e.g
>> 
>> ex:prg1 ex:firstArgument ex:file1.
>> ex:firstArgument rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:used.
>> 
>> 
>> thanks
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> I already provided one [1] ... I'm not sure I can do better.
>>> 
>>> #g
>>> --
>>> 
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0447.html
>>> 
>>> On 03/06/2012 17:46, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> Hi Graham,
>>>> 
>>>> Can you suggest an alternative english language definition? I know you
>>>> had wanted to proceed from a technical definition.... but I'm looking
>>>> for a mechansim to get consensus.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Graham Klyne<graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>    wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2012 18:01, Paul Groth wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Trying to come to some route forward. If we can agree on the following
>>>>>> English definition, then we can set about finding good relation names:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A role is the function of an entity, activity, or agent in the context
>>>>>> of a relation. The subject and object of relations may be given roles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -1
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think the role necessarily relates to a distinguished component of the
>>>>> relation.  E.g consider delegation:  when agent A1 delegates role R to agent A2,
>>>>> the role R here is not specific to A1 or A2, but represents a transfer of
>>>>> responsibility between them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> #g
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>      wrote:
>>>>>>> tracker,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is ISSUE-384
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 17:24:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC