Re: PROV-ISSUE-237 (TLebo): Rename Relation to Involvement [prov-dm]

Tim -

Thanks for the reply.  I think "Active Involvement" is valid.  So, I'm 
also OK with

activeInvolvement
passiveInvolvement

I see that better than Involvement since the prefix makes it much more 
difficult to misinterpret.

Thanks

On 2/6/12 5:44 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote:
>
>> Tim -
>>
>> I also saw your other note to Luc and Paolo.  I would suggest, based 
>> on your logic, that your proposal of "involve" is replaced with 
>> "*participate*"
>
> The wg wrestled with "participate" around the first F2F. The problem 
> with it is that it insinuates too much agency.
> It was replaced with "wasAssociatedWith" which _is_ the one that 
> bestows agency (but might not for much longer).
>
>
>
>> and then somehow also add the decoration of whether it's /active/ or 
>> /passive/ participation.
>
> I very much like the bipartition of active and passive. That's the 
> center of what we keep spinning around.
>
> To me, passive participation is involvement.
> The ball I threw at Khalid's head was involved in the Assault activity.
> I find it hard to see the ball as a participant.
>
>
>>
>> I think involve is used (at least colloquially) in vague ways... like 
>> "involved" can mean "complex" or "complicated" in some contexts, etc.
>
>
> In some contexts, it can.
>
> If  :thing rdf:type prov:Involved, I could see how that could be 
> interpreted as "complex".
>
> But as a binary (or n-ary) relation, I find it hard to interpret
>
> :email_writing prov:involved :the_e_key  .
>
> as "complicated"
>
> -Tim
>
> What I'm shooting for in PROV-O:
>
> prov:involved rdfs:domain [ owl:unionOf ( prov:Activity prov:Entity ) ]
>
>
>
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> On 2/6/12 5:09 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> Hi, Paolo,
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim,
>>>>   I am not sure I understand. The term "relation" is entirely standard in data modelling,
>>> I would say because we are not creating a metamodeling language like UML or ERD. We're only making a model.
>>> So we shouldn't be using the general term for what we're doing.
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> Acknowledged. Time is short.
>>> However, time spent making this model easier to understand is worthwhile.
>>>
>>> PROV is offering a very limited set of relations, and I find the disparity in breadth to be dissonant.
>>> In talking about the model with others, I have found that they agree.
>>>
>>> -Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>