ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)
Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- prov-dm
- Raised by:
- Satya Sahoo
- Opened on:
- 2011-12-07
- Description:
- Hi,
The following are my comments for Sections 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 of the PROV-DM (as on Nov 28):
Section 5.3.3.1 Responsibility Record
1. "...a responsibility record, written actedOnBehalfOf(id,ag2,ag1,a,attrs) in PROV-ASN, has the following constituents:
* subordinate: an identifier ag2 for an agent record, which represents an agent associated with an activity, acting on behalf of the responsible agent;
* responsible: an identifier ag1 for an agent record, which represents the agent on behalf of which the subordinate agent ag2 acts;"
Comment: How is the chain of responsibility between multiple subordinate and responsible agents captured? The actedOnBehalfOf caters to a very specific use case and it is not clear why should the WG consider only this and not other Agent-Agent interactions? For example, Agent created an Agent, Agent destroyed an Agent, Agent monitored an Agent etc.?
--------------
Section 5.3.3.2 Derivation Record
1. "the transportation of a person from London to New-York"
Comment: What is derived from what in the above example?
2. "We note that the fourth theoretical case of a precise derivation, where the number of activities is not known or asserted cannot occur."
Comment: This is confusing. Comparing with precise-1 derivation record, the fourth case should be "asserter asserts that derivation is due to exactly n activities and all the details are asserted". Why this case cannot occur?
3. wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[prov:steps="1"] ∪ attrs)
Comment: What does "U" in the above statement mean? Set union, that is, duplicates are deleted? What if multiple "precise-1 derivations" exist - would use of the U operator allow creation of an "imprecise" derivation with contradictory attribute-value pairs? More importantly, if all the details of a derivation are known by asserter, why would the asserter use the imprecise derivation?
Thanks.
Best,
Satya - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2012-03-23)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-23)
- Re: prov-dm - when are constructs too domain specific? (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-01-03)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-12-08)
- prov-dm - when are constructs too domain specific? (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-12-07)
- PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-12-07)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log