- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 09:12:10 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 Jun Sent from my iPad On 30 Apr 2012, at 11:41, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-368 (no-responsibility-in-derivation): No responsibility in derivation [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm > > > We are having ongoing discussion about responsibility in derivations (see ISSUE-357 and ISSUE-352). > > In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations. > > Instead of > wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,ag,attrs) > we should write > wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,attrs) > and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag) > > > Instead of > wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs) > we should write: > wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,attrs) > and wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1) > and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2) > > > > We are not losing in expressivity, I believe, instead, we decouple components 2 and 3 in the data model. > > Furthermore, if we allow optional arguments in derivations, > wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, attrs) > they should also be allowed in quotation/original source/revision, to > make these proper subrelations. > > Cheers, > Luc > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 14:52:45 UTC