RE: Definition of role

I think that's prov:type, not prov:role.

I think a distinction is made between declaring types/subtypes and roles even if that distinction is a bit ill-defined. If you define a type (or sub-type), you are defining characteristics that apply to/constrain/are used to recognise a class of things. If you declare a role, you more intuitively talking about one thing and saying what it was or did in a composition, such as the function of an entity within an activity, or the responsibilities of a person in an organisation. I agree these overlap: a function or responsibility is a characteristic, multiple things could play the same role, etc. but type and role are used differently because of their connotations. That's my intuitive understanding, anyway.

thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/
________________________________________
From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 31 May 2012 17:32
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definition of role

On 31/05/2012 17:17, Miles, Simon wrote:
> Hello Graham,
>
>> From today's discussion, that's what I thought you meant, but why isn't that just subtyping of relations, which I believe we already allow?

I feel I'm missing something here ... I thought they (roles) were *the*
mechanism for subtyping relations (in DM).

So, yes, it is subtyping of relations.

#g
--

> thanks,
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Miles
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>
> accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations:
> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/
> ________________________________________
> From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
> Sent: 31 May 2012 17:11
> To: W3C provenance WG
> Subject: Definition of role
>
> Following today's teleconference, this came to me:
>
> [[
> A role is a restriction on a relationship between entities, agents and/or
> activities, which qualifies the nature of the relationship.
> ]]
>
> I think that says what's needed.  But it does need supporting by some examples.
>
> #g
> --
>

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 18:26:10 UTC