Re: Three comments

Jacobo,

Thanks for taking a look and prov-o. I hope that you'll find it worth adopting or extending for your project.

As part of the W3C process, I've logged your comments as an issue in our tracker.

https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/651

The Working Group will prepare a response and return it to you, so that you may review and acknowledge before we move to Final Recommendation.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback.

Regards,
Tim Lebo

On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:14 AM, Jacobo Rouces <jrg@es.aau.dk> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have been looking at PROV-O and I intend to use or extend it for a
> project where we need provenance metadata for named rdf graphs. I have
> a “triple” of suggestions that come from vocabulary restrictions I
> have thought of for my own use, but since I see the vocabulary is
> still in a CR stage, I have decided to expose them for the case they
> might be included in the base vocabulary. However, I must say I am
> quite a newcomer into RDF and related technologies, so I might well be
> very wrong.
> 
> 1. I wonder if instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy
> instance of Activity could always be used to connect the original and
> obtained entities, even without further properties. This would make
> modeling more homogenous, which might make things easier for automated
> tools, and would be straightforward to add information about the
> activity if it was discovered in a later stage, without the need of
> removing triples. I think these advantages and the reduction of the
> vocabulary make up for the overhead in extra nodes.
> 
> 2. The existence of wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we
> already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity
> that led to the Entity. I am aware that without cardinality
> constraints between Activity and Entity, an activity can generate
> several Entities and therefore an Agent involved in an Activity is not
> necessarily involved in one of its generated Entities. But maybe this
> would be a reason to consider introducing cardinality constraints, as
> activities that generate several Entities can usually be divided into
> more specific Activities that only lead to one Entity. So Activities
> that generate several Entities could be modeled as a higher level
> resource that aggregates several activities. I know in this way you
> remove a term to introduce another one, but you get rid of the
> semantic overlapping and possible redundancy between wasAttributedTo
> and wasAssociatedWith.
> 
> 3. The unqualified relation actedOnBehalfOf, since it is independent
> of the activity, it becomes a general or "atemporal" property of the
> agent and should be better named actsOnBehalfOf.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jacobo Rouces.
> 
> 
>