Re: PROV-ISSUE-103 (qualifiers-and-roles): Qualifiers and roles in the ontology [Formal Model]

yes, please close it.
On Mar 5, 2012 3:47 PM, "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
wrote:

> Hi Stian,
> I think that this issue is out of date, since we have reached consensus in
> the modeling.
> Can we close it?
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> 2011/9/28 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
>
>>
>> PROV-ISSUE-103 (qualifiers-and-roles): Qualifiers and roles in the
>> ontology [Formal Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/103
>>
>> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> On product: Formal Model
>>
>> file:///home/stain/stuff/src/provenance-wg/prov/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#role
>> defines a prov:Role as a subclass of prov:Entity.
>>
>> the example shows:
>> <CrimeFile#Alice> cf:assumesRole cf:Author
>>
>> Beyond "assumesRole" here being in the crime ontology, I don't
>> particularly like this approach, because if #Alice is controlling two
>> different process executions, one as an #Author and one as a #Editor, that
>> can't reliably be expressed with the single #Alice. My understanding of
>> using Role as a subclass of Entity was that you could specialise the entity
>> with a new "roled" entity which locks down which role is assumed. This
>> roled entity (prov:EntityInRole I proposed to call it) can then be used by
>> prov:used, prov:wasControlledBy etc. It looks slightly strange for the
>> prov:wasGeneratedBy case, though.
>>
>> But in the formal model, it has not yet been resolved how roles are meant
>> to be used in the places where the conceptual model uses roles. In
>> particular the model now declares the use of more general *qualifieres*,
>> which can be attached to wasGeneratedBy, used, wasDerivedFrom and
>> wasControlledBy, where the qualifier "role" (we assume something like
>> prov:role in the ontology) is reserved for the purpose cf:assumesRole tries
>> to fit - although in the conceptual model a role is just a string, not an
>> identifier/URI.
>>
>>
>> Are there any further examples of such qualifiers beyond "role"?
>>
>> Given the conceptual model's requirements for arbitrary attributes
>> attached to the generation, use, derivation and control, I am not convinced
>> that my previously suggested EntityInRole (as a rename of prov:Role), using
>>  prov:wasComplementOf or prov:assumedBy back to the original entity, would
>> do the trick anymore. The question would be which attributes are part of
>> the entity, and which of the relation, it also becomes quite cumbersome
>> having to repeat the characterising attributes every time.
>>
>> So one way out is to introduce a new prov:EntityRelation class instead.
>> This is not a subclass of prov:Entity (and does not describe something in
>> the world), but is added by owl:union to the domain/range of the properties
>> which relates to entities.  Here any attributes will correspond do the
>> qualifiers, and this would be an old-style n-ary glue class. The shadowed
>> entity is only included by a prov:relatedToEntity property, the old
>> attributes of the entity is not mirrored.
>>
>> Any other takers? I don't want to focus on an OWL vs RDF discussion, just
>> some practical solutions would be great - I struggled with the lack of how
>> to describe roles when doing the workflow example in
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#modeling-an-example-scientific-workflow-scenario
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>