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: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:33:03 +0000
To: "'Jim McCusker'" <mccusj@rpi.edu>, "'Stian Soiland-Reyes'" <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "'Paolo Missier'" <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "'public-prov-wg@w3.org'" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC230296B5E8@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>
I don't know that it's a big deal, but I think of hadRecipe as potentially very indirect rather than a subclass of used. I'd like to assert that the "software development" PE was intended to satisfy the plan as documented in "Work Breakdown Structure element 2.7" but in a use case like that, it seems a stretch to say the PE used the plan versus that I'm just asserting that the PE was intended to fulfill the plan (perhaps just the selection of this PE versus another one was affected by the plan and, after the selection of the PE, the plan was not directly used to guide it, etc.).

Jim

From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim McCusker
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:21 AM
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes
Cc: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

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?

Jim
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk<mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk<mailto: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




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

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 16:34:33 GMT

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