ResponsesToPublicCommentsPR

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 13:42, 14 March 2013 by Tlebo (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Responses

ISSUE-xxx

  • 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".
  • References:
  • Changes to the document:
    • No changes made.
  • Original author's acknowledgement:

ISSUE-xxx