- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:45:24 +0100
- To: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
tracker, This is ISSUE-384 On 31/05/12 19:25, Miles, Simon wrote: > I think that's prov:type, not prov:role. > > I think a distinction is made between declaring types/subtypes and roles even if that distinction is a bit ill-defined. If you define a type (or sub-type), you are defining characteristics that apply to/constrain/are used to recognise a class of things. If you declare a role, you more intuitively talking about one thing and saying what it was or did in a composition, such as the function of an entity within an activity, or the responsibilities of a person in an organisation. I agree these overlap: a function or responsibility is a characteristic, multiple things could play the same role, etc. but type and role are used differently because of their connotations. That's my intuitive understanding, anyway. > > thanks, > Simon > > Dr Simon Miles > Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 > > accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations: > http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/ > ________________________________________ > From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk] > Sent: 31 May 2012 17:32 > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Definition of role > > On 31/05/2012 17:17, Miles, Simon wrote: > >> Hello Graham, >> >> >>> From today's discussion, that's what I thought you meant, but why isn't that just subtyping of relations, which I believe we already allow? >>> > I feel I'm missing something here ... I thought they (roles) were *the* > mechanism for subtyping relations (in DM). > > So, yes, it is subtyping of relations. > > #g > -- > > >> thanks, >> Simon >> >> Dr Simon Miles >> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics >> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK >> +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >> >> accounting for the reasons behind contractual violations: >> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1283/ >> ________________________________________ >> From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk] >> Sent: 31 May 2012 17:11 >> To: W3C provenance WG >> Subject: Definition of role >> >> Following today's teleconference, this came to me: >> >> [[ >> A role is a restriction on a relationship between entities, agents and/or >> activities, which qualifies the nature of the relationship. >> ]] >> >> I think that says what's needed. But it does need supporting by some examples. >> >> #g >> -- >> >>
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:45:58 UTC