Provenance: Agent, Contribution competing approaches
Opened this issue · 0 comments
In order to have Agent more closely reflect the "Agent" concept from W3C Provenance's model we should consider
- a recursive "actedOnBehalfOf" relationship between Agents to allow for agents that are part of a hierarchical organization structure.
- the notion of a role that to specify how the agent played the role ( I realize this is in contribution, but I'm unclear how not having it in the direct Agent to Entity or Agent to Activity relationship is useful)
- we should segregate "activity" entities from "entity" entities more strictly so as to not conflate "entities" with activity-like information such as date/times, either that or we should strictly define the built-in activity information "created", "modified", "approved/asserted", "published", "curated", etc...
Contribution is a better bundling of Agent and Activity concepts from W3C Prov (IMO) agent, role and date/time of the activity. But it is confusing when similar attributes are also provided on the entities themselves. I like flexibility, but not at the loss of consistency.
For example,
Assertion has (stated_by and date_stated) as well as (validated_by and date_validated) built in.
EvidenceLine has (evidence_strength_ assessed_by and date_evidence_strength_ assessed) built in.
EvidenceItem has (date and specifiedBy) built in (not sure if these go together).
Only EvidenceItem has a relationship with Activity - is that intentional?
If Assertion and EvidenceLine are to contain the precise provenance information for the agent and date/time of the activities "stating"/"validating" and "strength_assessing", respectively, then why do we have the Contribution entity? Is it for additional kinds of contributions? If so, then it should be clarified. I don't think it is right to have alternative approaches to representing the same information (at least not such significantly structural differences).
I recommend that we standardize how provenance data is structured throughout the model so that we can reduce complexity and confusion for adopters.