W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:38:31 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|cc346856d2d7c4c9955872d45bd004ebp2DDe208l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5141D2D5.1020802@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi,
I created a wiki page for our responses
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR
Luc

On 14/03/2013 13:13, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-651: 3 comments on prov-o (wasDerived, wasAttrib, actedOnBehalf)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/651
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product:
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CABC+A3LHXh1r1BHqZR7eXqes8dRFKVg3A6oBB0F=mgUimL6r8g@mail.gmail.com
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 13:40:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC