- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:58:04 -0400
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Stian, On May 3, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>> >> 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. I think this is well stated and shows many nice symmetries. For me, this collapses when I consider all "starters" (your "X") to be "used" (your "X"). Any activity that is started by X also used X to start. With this view, wasStartedByActivity is a kind of wasInformedBy and was wasStartedBy is a kind of used. -Tim > > > 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 Monday, 7 May 2012 14:58:40 UTC