- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:16:47 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAExK0DcbhW_F5eXjTPvE0hP9NjAuSOv78tw-ZbaspRKffUBzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jim, This issue is still raised. Roles are not anymore a type of entities, si we should be able to close it. Thoughts? Daniel 2012/1/18 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > ** > Hi Jim, > > Since we talk about prov-dm here, I am not sure I am following you with > this notion of role with specialization. > > Currently, the prov:role attribute is defined as follows > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-role > > This definition suggests only one form of role. > > Luc > > > On 17/01/12 23:20, Jim McCusker wrote: > > With the current state of things, roles can be expressed using > specializationOf with an extra type on the specialization or as a > qualification on an event. I prefer the former, but many prefer the latter. > If the group is happy with having both methods of specifying roles, we're > done. I'm a little uncomfortable with it, but it seems that we are talking > about two very different levels of formality on each. If we moved hadRole > to Entity from the qualification, then it becomes easy to translate between > the two patterns using OWL. It might be possible on the qualification too, > but it might require inverse properties to do correctly, and I don't know > if it would be convertable both ways. > > Jim > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: > >> Hi Jim, >> >> I am not sure where we are on this issue, whether the discussion on >> alternateOf is addressing it, >> or whether the current draft is already addressing your concerns. >> >> Thanks, >> Luc >> >> >> On 15/09/11 18:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-96 (entities and roles): Relating Roled Entities with >>> non-Roled Entities [Conceptual Model] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/96 >>> >>> Raised by: James McCusker >>> On product: Conceptual Model >>> >>> Let's say we have Entities "Jim McCusker" and "Jim McCusker as first >>> author of XYZ paper". Under the current proposal, "Jim McCusker as first >>> author of XYZ paper" is of type Entity and also of type FirstAuthor, which >>> is a subclass of Entity and is therefore a Role. Since "Jim McCusker as >>> first author of XYZ paper" is contextualized by that role, it's not correct >>> for that to share the same URI as "Jim McCusker". However, there is some >>> sort of relationship. >>> >>> I'd like to propose that complementOf, or whatever succeeds it, is that >>> relationship. It follows the same pattern of "same entity in different >>> contexts", as the role is a particular non-temporal, non-spatial >>> contextualization. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 > http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu > http://tw.rpi.edu > >
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:17:20 UTC