W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: relations between activites

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:13:55 -0400
Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <A7D2A468-3ACD-469E-8BCB-BE2DFD211559@rpi.edu>
To: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
Satra,

Since the notion of conceptually grouping resources is popular is so many other models, it doesn't seem necessary to recreate it.

I plan to use dcterms:hasPart / isPartOf to model sub activities.

I've seen others use http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl#part_of

SKOS broader might apply, too.


As far as  your wasFollowedBy, prov:wasInformedBy is similar but I think a different meaning than you intend.


Regards,
Tim Lebo

On Jul 6, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Satrajit Ghosh wrote:

> hello,
> 
> i was discussing this with luc and based on his feedback thought it might be useful to bring this up on the list.
> 
> ----
> question:
> how do you encode that a certain activity "emailing a letter" happened during another activity "a meeting"?
> 
> for example we conduct research studies/projects.
> 
> activity(p1, [prov:type='ex:Project'])
> activity(p2, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=1])
> activity(p3, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=2])
> 
> how would i encode that this activity p2 and p3 were conducted during p1? 
> how would i encode p3 followed p2?
> 
> 
> luc's response:
> Regarding your question, there may be a few options:
> you could add time information to your activities. This will help you understand their ordering.
> 
> Alternatively, if you want an explicit dependency in your graph, then p2 may generate something
> that starts p3, and/or is consumed by p3
> 
> Finally, prov doesn't have relations between activities, to express their nesting, etc. It's important
> but we felt this is not specific to provenance, but to process executions.
> ----
> 
> it's the last point on this response that i was not completely sure about. why "relations between activities" is "not specific to provenance, but to process executions."
> 
> in the above example, one could say:
> 
> wasSubtaskOf(p2, p1) 
> wasSubtaskOf(p3, p1) 
> wasFollowedBy(p2, p3)
> 
> any clarification as to why such relations would be outside the realm of provenance would be much appreciated.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> satra
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 13:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 July 2012 13:14:25 GMT