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: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:07:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|aa3ad21223c0a1ee1ce842ad7b6a7fd4n8MB8808l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E7C5A59.4050705@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James,

We felt that this issue was specific to the OWL mapping. So we have 
'moved it' to
the [Formal Model] product.

Regards,
Luc

On 15/09/2011 16:07, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 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 Friday, 23 September 2011 10:08:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT