- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:55:56 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Tim, I am not sure I understand. The term "relation" is entirely standard in data modelling, as well as in set theory. "association" is used instead in UML and I wouldn't object to that. But why do we need to spend time looking for alternatives? --Paolo On 2/6/12 9:32 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I am keen to replace 'relation' (and 'element') by more appropriate names. > > I am not sure why 'involvement'? involvement in what? > > How appropriate is it for alternateOf? > > Thanks, > Luc > > On 06/02/12 21:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/237 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> I propose to rename "Relation" in PROV-DM to "Involvement" because "Relation" is too broad and a provenance interchange should limit itself to how agents, activities, and entities were involved with one another as the lead to some result. >> >> Relations other than involvements should be out of scope for provenance interchange (and seem to be already be handled with the attribute-values). >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 23:02:40 UTC