- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:54:35 +0000
- To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=SxcB_uph0urL0f8UW=QkbGDcOt3eAQup4uPbwcTTQERg@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, that's fine. Jim On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Daniel Garijo < dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: > Hi Jim, > This issue is still raised. > Roles are not anymore a type of entities, si we should be able to close it. > Thoughts? > > Daniel > > > 2012/1/18 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > >> ** >> Hi Jim, >> >> Since we talk about prov-dm here, I am not sure I am following you with >> this notion of role with specialization. >> >> Currently, the prov:role attribute is defined as follows >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-role >> >> This definition suggests only one form of role. >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 17/01/12 23:20, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >> With the current state of things, roles can be expressed using >> specializationOf with an extra type on the specialization or as a >> qualification on an event. I prefer the former, but many prefer the latter. >> If the group is happy with having both methods of specifying roles, we're >> done. I'm a little uncomfortable with it, but it seems that we are talking >> about two very different levels of formality on each. If we moved hadRole >> to Entity from the qualification, then it becomes easy to translate between >> the two patterns using OWL. It might be possible on the qualification too, >> but it might require inverse properties to do correctly, and I don't know >> if it would be convertable both ways. >> >> Jim >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: >> >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> I am not sure where we are on this issue, whether the discussion on >>> alternateOf is addressing it, >>> or whether the current draft is already addressing your concerns. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 15/09/11 18:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-96 (entities and roles): Relating Roled Entities with >>>> non-Roled Entities [Conceptual Model] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/96 >>>> >>>> Raised by: James McCusker >>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>> >>>> Let's say we have Entities "Jim McCusker" and "Jim McCusker as first >>>> author of XYZ paper". Under the current proposal, "Jim McCusker as first >>>> author of XYZ paper" is of type Entity and also of type FirstAuthor, which >>>> is a subclass of Entity and is therefore a Role. Since "Jim McCusker as >>>> first author of XYZ paper" is contextualized by that role, it's not correct >>>> for that to share the same URI as "Jim McCusker". However, there is some >>>> sort of relationship. >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose that complementOf, or whatever succeeds it, is that >>>> relationship. It follows the same pattern of "same entity in different >>>> contexts", as the role is a particular non-temporal, non-spatial >>>> contextualization. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu >> >> > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 16:55:28 UTC