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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-369 (drop-startByActivity): Should we drop wasStartedByActivity? [prov-dm]

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 09:16:59 +0100
Message-Id: <41FBF40A-A5A0-4C90-B6FC-69A8AC1139EB@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "<public-prov-wg@w3.org>" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
My only worry I that people might use wasInformedBy to express this 'trigger' relationship between activities, without noticing the subtlety or choice. What does MacTed say about wasInformedBy?

Jun

Sent from my iPad

On 30 Apr 2012, at 11:57, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-369 (drop-startByActivity): Should we drop wasStartedByActivity? [prov-dm]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/369
> 
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
> 
> 
> There are regular comments about wasStartedByActivity.
> 
> MacTed was saying why don't we also have wasStartedByAgent.
> 
> Someone else  was saying, why don't we have wasEndedByActivity? ... and ByAgent.
> 
> In the spirit of simplification, we could drop the concept.
> Whenever we want to write
> 
> wasStartedByActivity(a2,a2)
> 
> we would instead have to write
> 
> wasStartedBy(a2,e)
> wasGeneratedBy(e,a1)
> 
> for some entity.  
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> Luc 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 14:52:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 May 2012 14:52:38 GMT