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 17:09:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmwLTgOQNXmqhckNTk_MOn5bbXnFQs5-QPZh6FNm3X2mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Cc: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 16:21, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:
> If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a subproperty of
> used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of Recipe/Plan already
> (this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need anything
> other than used?

I like this suggestion, except that we now have to talk about the plan
as an entity.. my initial thought was that the recipe-link goes "out
there in the world" - so in my example it goes directly to the
wf:ProcessDefinitions - I'm not sure if it would be OK or not for
those to also become entities and used.. in many ways it's right like
you say. And I've mentioned before how this avoids having to decide if
something is program or data.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 16:10:54 UTC

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