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:
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Re: prov-dm - when are constructs too domain specific? (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-01-03)
  4. 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)
  5. prov-dm - when are constructs too domain specific? (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-12-07)
  6. 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 ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 194.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:27 vivien Exp $