Difference between revisions of "ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(ISSUE-651)
(ISSUE-651)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
**  The commenter suggests that "instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy instance of Activity could always be used". The PROV model was designed to satisfy two different -- but complementary -- provenance user communities. "Entity-centric" users tend to focus on data and are less concerned about the activities involved. "Activity-centric" users tend use workflow environments where executions have relatively more prominence. Each is a valid perspective on the world, and it was important for the Working Group to provide constructs that would satisfy both. The commenter is correct that choosing only one of these perspectives would lead to a "more homogenous" design, it would exclude essentially half of the provenance community and would thus inhibit PROV's adoptability. From the example provided by the commenter, a modeler that is uninterested or simply unaware of the activity that derived one entity from another would be forced to clutter their model with "clutter".
 
**  The commenter suggests that "instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy instance of Activity could always be used". The PROV model was designed to satisfy two different -- but complementary -- provenance user communities. "Entity-centric" users tend to focus on data and are less concerned about the activities involved. "Activity-centric" users tend use workflow environments where executions have relatively more prominence. Each is a valid perspective on the world, and it was important for the Working Group to provide constructs that would satisfy both. The commenter is correct that choosing only one of these perspectives would lead to a "more homogenous" design, it would exclude essentially half of the provenance community and would thus inhibit PROV's adoptability. From the example provided by the commenter, a modeler that is uninterested or simply unaware of the activity that derived one entity from another would be forced to clutter their model with "clutter".
 
** The second comment "wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity that led to the Entity." follows the same pattern as just described. "wasAttributedTo" allows "entity-centric" modelers to describe their entities without a "dummy" Activity, and "activity-centric" modelers may ascribe responsibility in the latter approach.
 
** The second comment "wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity that led to the Entity." follows the same pattern as just described. "wasAttributedTo" allows "entity-centric" modelers to describe their entities without a "dummy" Activity, and "activity-centric" modelers may ascribe responsibility in the latter approach.
 +
*** The commenter mentions the use of "cardinality constraints". The Working Group strived for an OWL ontology that would be lightweight enough for the entire semantic web community to adopt, which includes the Linked Data community that prefers minimal OWL constructs. This rationale is described in the appendix http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#owl-profile
 
* References:
 
* References:
 
* Changes to the document:  
 
* Changes to the document:  

Revision as of 13:49, 14 March 2013

Responses

ISSUE-651

  • Original email: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABC+A3LHXh1r1BHqZR7eXqes8dRFKVg3A6oBB0F=mgUimL6r8g@mail.gmail.com
  • Tracker: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/651
  • Group Response
    • The commenter suggests that "instead of the wasDerivedFrom property, a dummy instance of Activity could always be used". The PROV model was designed to satisfy two different -- but complementary -- provenance user communities. "Entity-centric" users tend to focus on data and are less concerned about the activities involved. "Activity-centric" users tend use workflow environments where executions have relatively more prominence. Each is a valid perspective on the world, and it was important for the Working Group to provide constructs that would satisfy both. The commenter is correct that choosing only one of these perspectives would lead to a "more homogenous" design, it would exclude essentially half of the provenance community and would thus inhibit PROV's adoptability. From the example provided by the commenter, a modeler that is uninterested or simply unaware of the activity that derived one entity from another would be forced to clutter their model with "clutter".
    • The second comment "wasAttributedTo seems unnecessary to me, as we already can express the same with wasAssociatedWith from the Activity that led to the Entity." follows the same pattern as just described. "wasAttributedTo" allows "entity-centric" modelers to describe their entities without a "dummy" Activity, and "activity-centric" modelers may ascribe responsibility in the latter approach.
      • The commenter mentions the use of "cardinality constraints". The Working Group strived for an OWL ontology that would be lightweight enough for the entire semantic web community to adopt, which includes the Linked Data community that prefers minimal OWL constructs. This rationale is described in the appendix http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#owl-profile
  • References:
  • Changes to the document:
    • No changes made.
  • Original author's acknowledgement:

ISSUE-xxx