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

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

From: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:01:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+A4wOnL2exwAeJtc-nnbpc++kyz5xhoo7DPueYiEFMxHrPYew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: "Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D." <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>, public-prov-comments@w3.org
dear paul,

thank you for the update.

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.
>

i understand trying to stay away from plans and workflows and possibly not
relive the uml discussions. however, even in a simple context activities
are typically related to each other in a provenance sense, and while time
covers some aspect of that, it doesn't in anyway cover sub-activities.


> - 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.
>

that's what i was hoping a simple relation such as wasRelatedTo(a1, a2, --)
would cover this and one that could then be decorated by dcterms:hasPart,
partOf, etc.,.

also i would love to know about the workflow specification initiatives. as
an architect of a workflow framework for brain imaging, standardizing that
effort would be quite useful.


> - 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.
>

really looking forward to this faq, especially where it can capture such
relations as partOf.

cheers,

satra
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:02:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:02:39 GMT