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

Re: relations between activites

From: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+A4wO=ThNUbh1ng5dODHZVaMSx6YA7DSYTRxKp_Hf+TOTecjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
dear tim, paul and stian,

thank you for following up on the question and opening an issue.

1. indeed other ontologies can be used to characterize some of the
relationships between activities. i'm happy to use partOf. however, in
general it seems the entity-entity relations have been well characterized,
while the same cannot be said for the others.

one related thought is using the wasAssociatedWith relationship also for
activities.

wasAssociatedWith(p2, p1, prov:type='dcterms:isPartOf')
wasAssociatedWith(p3, p1, prov:type='dcterms:isPartOf')
wasAssociatedWith(p3, p2, prov:type='ex:followed/overlapped/preceded')

2. an explicit prov notion of composition whether between agents, entities
or activities would be useful. i'm using collections to provide composition
of entities. see example 2 in the link below.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bic42-jURqPUzvTCB_YBL5xcxO5EgEcEiYi560W0dR4/edit

3. re: adequate prior art on activity composition and granularity
management: i think uml stands out in this context. while focused on
software and object oriented programming, it does bear a very similar
relationship to everyday entities and activities.

happy to provide any feedback that might be useful.

cheers,

satra


On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> 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 Sunday, 8 July 2012 13:17:29 UTC

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