W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:16:40 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <962927D2-49F4-473D-8450-AFB6DB8DD4E9@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> I'm not sure - now we can't have a planned activity without an agent -
> so there will be phantom agents appearing.

^^ is there a separate issue for this? It seems odd that an Activity can't mention a plan without also bringing an Agent to the game.

-Tim

> 
> There is also no way to say that the associated agent is actually
> *performing* the activity. And so we only know that an agent performed
> something with relation to the activity, and that something might or
> might not have been following the associated plan.
> 
> These are DM issues, though.. so you can close this issue. I would
> have to think of a good use-case of a plan/recipe which there is no
> agent following - perhaps that's not possible?
> 
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:41, Daniel Garijo
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> Hi Stian,
>> this issue is still raised and pending review.
>> now we have Plans to link an agent and a plan to an activity,
>> with an Association.
>> 
>> I think that we have addressed this issue, and it could be closed. Thoughts?
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 2011/9/28 Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@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> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 02:21:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT