Re: Definition of role

Where are we on role?

I used it on Membership, which I think is reasonable.
But this "violates" the current PROV-O.
I'm very much in favor of leaning towards a relaxed domain for hadRole.

Regards,
Tim

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership/rdf/eg-34-us-supreme-court-membership.ttl


    87    prov:qualifiedMembership [ # We can qualify a KeyValuePair's membership in this Dictionary.
    88       a prov:Membership;
    89       prov:pair [            
    90          a prov:KeyValuePair;
    91          prov:pairKey   "chief";
    92          prov:pairValue <http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Glover_Roberts,_Jr.>;
    93       ];
    94       
    95       prov:hadRole :chief-justice;     # Here is my little addition about Chief Roberts.
    96    ];



On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>