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

Re: Difference between wasInformedBy and wasStartedByActivity

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:03:00 -0400
Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <634D87C8-7E18-4FE5-B843-CD1F20176E9F@rpi.edu>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Khalid,

On May 3, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>> 
> The example of workflow triggering a subworkflow uses this hidden trigger. Here is an example that actually specify the entity (or trigger) more explicit.
> 
> :letterRespection a prov:Activity .
> :accidentNotification a prov:Entity .
> :accidentNotification prov:wasGeneratedBy :letterReception .
> 
> :insurranceClaim a prov:Activity ;
>    prov:wasStartedBy :accidentNotification ;
>    prov:wasStartedByActivity :letterReception .
> 
> Notice that :insurranceClaim does not use :accidentNotification, and therefore :insurranceClaim was not informed by :letterReception.

I don't think this is a good example for "implicit" entities between activities.

I would think that _something_ in that letter would make it into the insurance claim (and thus be "used"). 
Perhaps any of the following:
* the client that was in the accident, 
* their account number, 
* the date and location of the accident.

-Tim


> 
> khalid
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> Jun
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 15:03:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 15:03:41 GMT