Re: PROV-ISSUE-530: Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6) [prov-dm]

Dear all,

Find a proposed response for this in the wiki at:
For convenience, it is copied below.
Comments, feedback?
Best regards,

      ISSUE-530 (attributes)

  * Original
  * Tracker:
  * Group Response
      o The group has given careful considerations to attributes in
        prov-dm, specifically time, location and role.
      o The group could not reach consensus to allow these attributes to
        more concepts of the data model.
      o No other external comments made a request for allowing such
        attributes in more concepts.
      o Role:
          + We have already elaborated on roles in our response to ISSUE-532
      o Location:
          + While a notion of location is fairly intuitive for an
            activity or entity, it is less intuitive for associations
            for instance. In an association, the activity may have a
            location, and the agent may have a location. It is however
            unclear what the location of the association itself may be.
      o Time:
          + The same comments apply for time. However, in this case, the
            constraints document explains what kind of ordering
            constraints exist, between an agent and activity, for instance.
  * So overall, the group could not find consensus to broaden these
    attributes to other relations in a meaningful manner. Given
    implementation, using the PROV extension mechanism, are however able
    to add similar attributes for their specific needs.
  * References:
      o Roles:
      o Resolution on
      o Time
  * Proposed changes:none
  * Original author's acknowledgement:

On 10/09/12 09:54, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-530: Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6)   [prov-dm]
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
> ISSUE-463
> The restrictions on when time, location and role can be used should be reviewed after the public feedback period closes and changes are made to the model. In particular, I think there is justification for allowing other relationships, such as Association and Delegation, to take these attributes. The model would be more flexible without these restrictions (which could be circumvented using user-defined optional attributes if needed, at the expense of maintaining a single standard representation for the information).

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 06:47:22 UTC