- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:27:19 +0100
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Right, well, we confused each other as they are so similar, even when I thought I had it! Let's continue on Khalid's thread on the public list. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Khalid, Stian ;) > > On 03/05/2012 10:48, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> OK, so we say the subworkflow was using some data generated by the >> main workflow. But then.. what is the value of the >> wasInformedByActivity statement? It would just be restating something >> anyone could infer. > I am confused. Are you talking about wasStartedByActivity or wasInformedBy? > I guess you are talking about wasStartedByActivity. And I think this is > precisely why Tim is also pushing to keep only one of them in the DM. A wasInformedBy B says that B used X, wasGeneratedBy A. If we also know entity X and how it was used and generated, wasInformedBy is just restating that. A wasStartedByActivity B says that B wasStartedBy X, which wasGeneratedBy A. If we also know that entity X and how it started A and was generated by B, then wasStartedByActivity is just restating that. So both are shortcuts, and should have value as such where we don't know much about X, or where we add more data to that indirect relationship. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:28:08 UTC