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

RE: PROV-ISSUE-95 (Recipes as Classes): Recipes as classes? [Conceptual Model]

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:23:21 +0000
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC23030B95@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>
We had discussions earlier about the idea that a PE was an instance of a process which has a recipe and then decided that we could just represent PE hasRecipe R without realizing the process itself in the model. I don't have an opinion about the decision but I bring it up because I think process would be the right thing to be the class for a PE instance, not recipe. One type of instance of a recipe could be a file (text, workflow description, etc.) - a PE wouldn't be an instance of a recipe, but could be an instance of the process the recipe describes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:07 AM
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-95 (Recipes as Classes): Recipes as classes? [Conceptual
> Model]
> PROV-ISSUE-95 (Recipes as Classes): Recipes as classes? [Conceptual Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95

> Raised by: James McCusker
> On product: Conceptual Model
> This could be part of the conceptual model or formal model. It's a formal
> model idea, but it affects the conceptual model in some ways. I was
> attempting to model some process executions yesterday and hit on the idea
> that the recipe for a process execution could be a class of process execution.
> For instance, I was looking at defining a process execution of HTTP 1.1 GET.
> Now, the execution is itself an HTTP 1.1 GET, so I immediately thought that
> having <HTTP_1.1_GET> be the class of the PE would be a good way to signify
> the algorithm that was used for the execution. Of course, if the PE doesn't go
> to plan, having the type be of that class wouldn't be correct. But again, that
> could be the best way to signify that the process DID go to plan.
> We could still say that we "used" <HTTP_1.1_GET> as well. OWL 2 allows
> punning like that. We could even go so far as to give a restriction to a PE of
> type <HTTP_1.1_GET> that says something like:
> class HTTP_1.1_GET:
>   EquivalentTo:
>     prov:ProcessExecution and prov:used value HTTP_1.1_GET
>   SubClassOf:
>     prov:ProcessExecution

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:08 UTC