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

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

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:45:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=N9J5sGG8hLQjfg7u5uL0w6cTEph8uwJ60OHg5n+fVmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now part of formal
> model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
> isn't that thread relevant?

It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan as a
class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of attributes
you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
the plan.

I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it relies
on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple link, and
I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or  be much in
conflict with ISSUE-95.

I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
- we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we go for
ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.

We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 14:46:27 UTC

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