Provenance Working Group resolution ISSUE-447 and ISSUE-500 (subactivity)

Dear Satra, Robert:

Thank you both for your comments. Below is a suggested resolution for
your comments on sub-activities. Please let us know if you are fine
with it. You can find any suggested changes in the latest editor's
draft at
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

Thanks,
Paul


ISSUE-447 (subactivity)

Original email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0003.html

Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447

Group Response

- The Working Group charter identified an initial set of concepts, and
made it clear that the working group should not delve into the details
of plans and workflows (called then recipe). The charter did not list
a notion of subactivity either.

- The Working Group considered a notion of subactivity, but does not
understand the implication of introducing such a relation to the
model. In fact, there is little prior art about this in the provenance
community. There is also concern that specifying such a relation would
overlap with some workflow specification initiatives.

- For this reason, the Working Group decided not to provide a
normative definition of such a relation. Instead, the Working Group
suggests that a relation such as dcterms:hadPart could used by
applications, which would be responsible for ensuring its use is
consistent with the model.

- The Working Group intends to produce an FAQ page illustrating how
such a construct could be used.

References:
- Group resolution: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-13#resolution_2

- Charter initial list of concepts:
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Proposed_Charter_for_a_Provenance_Interchange_Working_Group

- dcterms:hasPart
http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/#coldctermshasPart

- FAQ page: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:47:47 UTC