- From: Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:47:28 +0100
- To: Davide Ceolin <davide.ceolin@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Davide I guess it depends on how you define "part of" in this setting. You can specify that an activity has started another, which makes, informally, the former a "parent" of the latter. You can use this to model forking, for example. This is about the observed behavior of a process and is within scope. But there is no way to express structural containment, or composition, because describing process models and structure (for instance, the structure of a program, a workflow, a script etc.) is not within the PROV scope. I hope others in the group concur with this interpretation Regards, P.Missier - paolo.missier@ncl.ac.uk On 7 May 2012, at 21:44, Davide Ceolin <davide.ceolin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am a PhD student of the VU University Amsterdam, and I would have a question about the composition of activities in PROV. I noticed that it is not possible to explicitly state that an activity is actually part of another one. > > Suppose that a given entity is the result of an activity and, in turn, this activity is part of a larger one. > > I can represent this scenario with two separate graphs stating that each of the two activities generated the entity, and from them (and their execution times, etc.) I may infer that one is part of the other one, but I can't explicitly state that. > > Is there a specific reason for such a limitation? > > Thanks, > > Davide > > Davide Ceolin MSc. > PhD student > The Network Institute > VU University Amsterdam > d.ceolin@vu.nl > http://www.few.vu.nl/~dceolin/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:48:09 UTC