- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:45:28 +0100
- 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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe - 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