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

PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:04:55 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R8r0Z-0007m6-Qx@barney.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]


Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
On product: Formal Model

The Conceptual Model allows the definition of *recipe links* on a ProcessExceution. In particular in the workflow example - - it would be useful to have the prov:recipe property or equivalent.

I propose:

    <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hadRecipe">
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;AsymmetricProperty"/>
        <!-- functional? <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty"/> -->
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/>
        <rdfs:label xml:lang="en"
            >had recipe</rdfs:label>
        <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en"
            >The ProcessExecution activity performed was described by 
            the given recipe resource. Process specifications, as
            referred to by recipe links, are out of scope of this
        <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ProcessExecution"/>

I am not sure about the exact term and propose "prov:hadRecipe" here according to the general guidelines (verb in past, pointing to the past)

As pointed out by others the PE might not have gone according to the plan, so it should be quite loose, not "prov:executedAccordingToRecipe". 

Note that ISSUE-95 discusses if Recipe should be a class or not - I've left the rdfs:range open above as the recipe model is not specified by this model - a marker-class prov:Recipe might be useful, but also confusing.
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 10:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:09 UTC