Re: PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]

Hi all,
following up the discussion we had today in the teleco,
we could add a "Derivation subclassOf [ on prov:activity max 0 ] ."
That would mean that prov:activity should not be used in Derivations
(or that if you have something with the prov:activity relationship, then it
is not
a derivation).
This would also be applicable for Invalidation, Responsibility and Start.

By the way, I've realized that Invalidation is in the domain of
prov:activity
and prov:hadAvtivity. If the activity is optional, then it is not an
ActivityInvolvement.
If the activity is not optional, then it shouldn't be in domain of
prov:hadActivity.

Thanks,
Daniel



2012/5/18 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

>
> On May 18, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> > PROV-ISSUE-378 (clarifyHadActivity): clarify hadActivity [Ontology]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/378
> >
> > Raised by: Daniel Garijo
> > On product: Ontology
> >
> > We should clarify the difference between prov:activity and
> prov:hadActivity (so people don't use prov:hadActivity in
> qualifiedGenerations).
> >
> > We could add a restirction on Generation:
> > Generation subclassOf [ on prov:hadActivity max 0 ] .
> >
>
> ^^ This is within RL and states the restriction that would prevent the
> confusion between activity and hadActivity.
>
> > And, since the difference between activity and hadActivity is that the
> former is not optional:
> > Generation subclassOf [ on prov:activity min 1 ] .
>
> ^^ min 1 goes against RL, which is why we've been avoiding them.
>
> >
> > Also, we should add an rdf:comment explaining this decision.
>
> ^^ Do you have a proposed comment to put in?
>
> THanks,
> TIm
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>