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

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

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 16:29:24 UTC

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