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: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:28:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=QQ2ZJWB5RpWr=1do34i0zTK8FcF7JcGn37dnU7w8dbeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>

If it's only ever a plan, I would imagine that using its URI directly (and
calling it a Plan in the provenance) would suffice without having to create
a new URI. It would be helpful to be able to have direct references of
Entities like that for folks who don't feel they need the indirection of
ivp/complement/whateverOf.

Jim
-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 16:29:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT