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

Re: [provo] Difference between wasInformedBy and wasStartedByActivity (ttl examples)

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 16:02:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dcs4ru+eYRdchnwpYnip+FmMyx=WXJgqh2Her-6vEKM2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian,
instead of removing the constraint that entity and activity are disjoint we
could
also (as another possibility) have activities OR entities as possible domain
of wasStartedBy. Now that we agreed on having an OWL-RL ++ profile,
this would be possible.

Thus, we would drop wasStartedByActivity, since wasStartedBy would
cover already the desired functionality, right?

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/5/8 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > +1, repositioning wasStartedByActivity as a "blurrier" form of
> wasStartedBy seems to finally find a place for it in the model.
> > Though, like Khalid, I'm not sure it will be used much, or correctly.
>
> It will certainly still be confusing, as it was for me. As you said,
> most wasStartedBy() would also come with a twin used() relationship
> (and therefore imply a wasInformedBy() relation).   At some point
> wasStartedBy was sub-property of wasInformedBy (making the choice
> simple) - but not anymore.
>
> As Luc raised, why not also wasEndedByActivity,  wasStartedByAgent etc.?
>
>
> So it might just not be worth it to keep wasStartedByActivity(). It's
> a bad sign if it's confusing to even the ontology designers, then how
> is any meaningful provenance exchange happen, where one party apply
> wasInformedBy like wasStartedByActivity, and the other the opposite?
>
>
>
> A second solution would be to remove the constraint that activity and
> entity are disjoint. Then you could say wasStartedBy(a2, a1),
> wasEndedBy(a2, a3) etc. - the activity can play the role of an entity
> as well, rather than inventing invisible phantom token entities. We
> are talking blurry provenance here, right, we don't know quite the
> nature of the interaction.
>
>
>
> > How can it be reframed so that wasStartedByActivity can "grow" in
> details like Derivation does with hadActivity, hadUsage, and hadGeneration?
>
> By adding a separate wasStartedBy() I would believe you have given all
> the information (as an activity can only be started once).  Or is it
> allowed to be wasStartedBy() two or more entities..? Luc?
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:03:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:03:18 GMT