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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 22:24:57 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|95c897753419f6f8d09c8a2b96f7958bo47MP608L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FA98F29.8050201@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian, Paolo, all,

I have encoded the proposal
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/31e2dc0de82d/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html

If people are happy, we can then adjust wasEndedBy similarly.
I propose to take a vote on this on Thursday.

Luc

On 08/05/12 17:06, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> That dual-mode style would confuse the interpretation of wasStartedBy, 
> the activity becomes a token (and thus and entity)
>
> Perhaps better would be to add the activity as an optional parameter 
> to wasStartedBy in dm and add prov:hadActivity/prov:startedByActivity 
> to prov:Start. It would mirror the activity of derivations.
>
> An activity start, written wasStartedBy(id,a,e,t,a2, attrs) in PROV-N, 
> has:
>
> id: an OPTIONAL identifier for the activity start;
> (..)
> activity: an OPTIONAL activity (a2) which generated the (possibly 
> unspecified) entity (e)
>
> attributes: an OPTIONAL set (attrs)of attribute-value pairs 
> representing additional information about this activity start.
>
> Then mirror this for wasEndedBy.
>
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
> On May 8, 2012 3:03 PM, "Daniel Garijo" 
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es 
> <mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>>
>
>         On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu
>         <mailto: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 21:25:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 May 2012 21:25:34 GMT