W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-115 (Tlebo): prov:preceded should be replaced with prov:followed [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtm=g1kFcZ99jTb6k4quQ_DVjxUdjOPWV8D-CK3hut3sYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 16:09, Khalid Belhajjame
<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> In the data model there is wasScheduledAfter, which I thought can be used
> instead of preceded. There is also an entry in the formal model (or
> provenance ontology) HTML document.
> Do you think wasScheduledAfter does the job? :-)

Yes, and likewise wasInformedBy should be added for consistency with DM.

We should re-discuss the name "wasScheduledAfter" later (after drafts
are public), as mentioned by Satya it is a much narrower
time-constraint than "preceded", because it implies an agent and a
plan, and also a strict definition:

> Given two process execution expressions identified by pe1 and pe2, the expression wasScheduledAfter(pe2,pe1) holds, if and only if there are two entity expressions identified by e1 and e2, such that wasControlledBy(pe1,e1,qualifier(role="end")) and wasControlledBy(pe2,e2,qualifier(role="start")) and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1).

I have multiple issues with this definition that I won't raise here.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 13:49:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:10 UTC