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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-447: subactivity relation [prov-dm]

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:23:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAANah+Erc6PDdQfRCmrPDr08XWZ_05D+UmeaCiuG7iFhFQh57A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I would go for option 1 provided that we dont say anything from the
point of view of ordering sub activities, with  respect to the parent
activity. If the only requirement is to have a means to know that one
activity is a child activity of another then I dont see a problem in
introducing the relation sub-activity. We did some thing similar with
collections to a certain degree, when we choose to keep in the DM the
membership relation, so why not do the same for activities.

Thanks, khalid

On 4 September 2012 14:57, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to kickstart discussion on this public comment.
> This has already been asked on several occasions, and this has previously
> been raised on the mailing list.
>
> I essentially see two options:
> 1. We change the model and add a sub-activity relation.
> 2. We don't change the model, but we come with a good justification for not
>     changing it.  In particular, we previously said this was out of scope.
> Perhaps,
>     we could point to some vocabularies already doing this.
>
> What are your views?
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> On 06/07/12 18:12, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> PROV-ISSUE-447: subactivity relation [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447
>>
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> There is a thread discussing the issue raised by Sutra at
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJCyKRqtC47OWc_rDRhFcQGdJ-yy2toQBCguUywFGZpHO5Q8Jw@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> The original email:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote:
>> hello,
>>
>> i was discussing this with luc and based on his feedback thought it might
>> be
>> useful to bring this up on the list.
>>
>> ----
>> question:
>> how do you encode that a certain activity "emailing a letter" happened
>> during another activity "a meeting"?
>>
>> for example we conduct research studies/projects.
>>
>> activity(p1, [prov:type='ex:Project'])
>> activity(p2, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=1])
>> activity(p3, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=2])
>>
>> how would i encode that this activity p2 and p3 were conducted during p1?
>> how would i encode p3 followed p2?
>>
>>
>> luc's response:
>> Regarding your question, there may be a few options:
>> you could add time information to your activities. This will help you
>> understand their ordering.
>>
>> Alternatively, if you want an explicit dependency in your graph, then p2
>> may
>> generate something
>> that starts p3, and/or is consumed by p3
>>
>> Finally, prov doesn't have relations between activities, to express their
>> nesting, etc. It's important
>> but we felt this is not specific to provenance, but to process executions.
>> ----
>>
>> it's the last point on this response that i was not completely sure about.
>> why "relations between activities" is "not specific to provenance, but to
>> process executions."
>>
>> in the above example, one could say:
>>
>> wasSubtaskOf(p2, p1)
>> wasSubtaskOf(p3, p1)
>> wasFollowedBy(p2, p3)
>>
>> any clarification as to why such relations would be outside the realm of
>> provenance would be much appreciated.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> satra
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:24:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:24:18 GMT