Re: PROV-ISSUE-288 (TLebo): ProvRDF issues for Usage [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

Luc, Satya,

This issue was reassigned to DM from the "dm-provrdf mapping" product.

Where do we stand on this "asymmetry" between an optional activity on Generation but not Usage.

Thanks,
Tim

On Mar 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 
> Hi Satya,
> Then, the equivalent would be to make the entity of a usage optional (i.e. the object of involvement).
> We can do it, if people feel it's appropriate.
> Luc
> 
> On 06/03/2012 15:43, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Luc,
>> The issue is about having activity id as optional for Generation and not for Usage - this is distinct from id of the Generation and Usage record id.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Satya
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Generation and usage have both optional id:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Generation
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Usage
>> 
>> Luc
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/03/12 13:45, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-288 (TLebo): ProvRDF issues for Usage [mapping prov-dm<->  prov-o]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/288
>> 
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: mapping prov-dm<->  prov-o
>> 
>>     If activity id is optional for generation record, why is it not so for usage record? These two points need to be reconciled either way. (Satya)
>> 
>>     Similar to generation, time can be "folded" into the "attribute" list. (Satya)
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Usage
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>