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

Re: relations between activites

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:57:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRqLbdayKKGLM02kB3PeiOgZ=ngiTxtYGr04Fw_LXX16GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi Satra

Just to quickly follow-up on process, we've marked this as ISSUE-447
found here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447

We will definitely look into how we can address your issue and
follow-up. This may involve consulting you as well.

Thanks for taking the time to use and review PROV.

regards
Paul

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> 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


-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 18:58:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:08:59 UTC