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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:20:15 +0000
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, 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: <EMEW3|6f5bf150b9012ea49b0aa4f226a8beefo285Kd08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D976F7B6-CC2B-420E-AE49-62AFAA5BB4A0@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Tim,
Yes, see my non-converging discussion with Stephan on ISSUE-203.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 9 Mar 2012, at 02:22, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> 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 05:23:23 GMT

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