Re: PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)

Hi Luc,
Please close this issue.

Best,
Satya

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Satya,
>
> I believe that points you raised in this issue were addressed in previous
> correspondence.
> I propose to close the issue.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> On 12/07/2011 02:11 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-194: Section 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/194<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/194>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product:
>>
>> Hi,
>> The following are my comments for Sections 5.3.3.1 and Section 5.3.3.2 of
>> the PROV-DM (as on Nov 28):
>>
>> Section 5.3.3.1 Responsibility Record
>> 1. "...a responsibility record, written actedOnBehalfOf(id,ag2,ag1,a,**attrs)
>> in PROV-ASN, has the following constituents:
>> * subordinate: an identifier ag2 for an agent record, which represents an
>> agent associated with an activity, acting on behalf of the responsible
>> agent;
>> * responsible: an identifier ag1 for an agent record, which represents
>> the agent on behalf of which the subordinate agent ag2 acts;"
>>
>> Comment: How is the chain of responsibility between multiple subordinate
>> and responsible agents captured? The actedOnBehalfOf caters to a very
>> specific use case and it is not clear why should the WG consider only this
>> and not other Agent-Agent interactions? For example, Agent created an
>> Agent, Agent destroyed an Agent, Agent monitored an Agent etc.?
>>
>> --------------
>> Section 5.3.3.2 Derivation Record
>> 1. "the transportation of a person from London to New-York"
>>
>> Comment: What is derived from what in the above example?
>>
>> 2. "We note that the fourth theoretical case of a precise derivation,
>> where the number of activities is not known or asserted cannot occur."
>>
>> Comment: This is confusing. Comparing with precise-1 derivation record,
>> the fourth case should be "asserter asserts that derivation is due to
>> exactly n activities and all the details are asserted". Why this case
>> cannot occur?
>>
>> 3. wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[prov:**steps="1"] ∪ attrs)
>>
>> Comment: What does "U" in the above statement mean? Set union, that is,
>> duplicates are deleted? What if multiple "precise-1 derivations" exist -
>> would use of the U operator allow creation of an "imprecise" derivation
>> with contradictory attribute-value pairs? More importantly, if all the
>> details of a derivation are known by asserter, why would the asserter use
>> the imprecise derivation?
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Satya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>