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: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:46:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=RpHA_+MvHuNCQ0WF2NLMC_Db4G2D_5ZdqadDq2LFmc9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:

>  Got it  makes sense. That mechanism in OWL addresses the distinction
> between process and description/definition we were discussing. Would it be
> better to think of the class as Process (versus plan?)  HTTPGet is a
> subclass of process (whose instances are PEs) and the HTTPGet instance
> defines the process (and hence is the plan)?****
That's the idea - the class HTTPGet is a subclass of ProcessExecution, and,
since it defines processes, is also a Plan. Since plans can be used (or had)
but not followed, the fact that a particular ProcessExecution had a
particular plan, but isn't of that type expresses that it didn't go to plan.
Which means that I have to tweak my HTTPGet class a little bit:

Class: HTTP_1.1:GET
        prov:used exactly 1 HTTP_1.1:UniformResourceLocator
        prov:generated exactly 1 HTTP_1.1:Transaction
        prov:hasPlan value HTTP_1.1_GET

since having a plan doesn't guarantee that it succeeded, it's a necessary
condition that you have the plan to be of that kind of process, but not
sufficient (hence, moving it from EquivalentTo to SubClassOf).

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 20:47:57 UTC

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