- From: Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:47:25 -0700
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim No, the pattern is multiple actedonBehalfOf relations chained together, possibly with one or more associatedWith relations hanging off the chain and connecting to activities. Something that you may want to write a specific query for as it may tell you more of the story than a relation taken in isolation. P.Missier - paolo.missier@ncl.ac.uk On 22 May 2012, at 08:00, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > > On May 22, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 5/22/12 6:42 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> On May 22, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: >>> >>>> Graham >>>> ... >>> >>>> The UML diagrams in the document are not patterns. They define a data model, which consists of classes and associations. These are all primitives, including the extensions. /To my mind/ :-), patterns belong in a "provenance cookbook" and describe appropriate combinations of classes and associations as I tried to express earlier (above). >>> +1 >>> >>> -Tim >> to clarify the distinction in my mind: "association" and "responsibility" are relations (or associations), "chain of responsibility" is a pattern. > > What about Attribution? > > By "chain of responsibility", do you mean actedOnBehalfOf? > If so, I disagree. The responsibility between two agents is a relation just as "association" and "attribution" are between an agent and an Activity or Entity, respectively. > > I'm a bit confused. > > -Tim > >> >> -Paolo >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:48:12 UTC