- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 17:56:01 -0400
- To: Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Davide Ceolin <davide.ceolin@gmail.com>, "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TowzPTZ6tUo=+JLV+0KT27D5UzESiR1twxDwAsL5xyAw@mail.gmail.com>
There are some problems here with composition though, specifically when you try to say something like this: :a1 a prov:Activity. :a2 a prov:Activity; dc:partOf :a1. :e1 a prov:Entity; prov:wasGeneratedBy :a1, :a2. Basically, since :a2 is part of :a1, and :a2 served as a "final activity" (there aren't any further activities that used :e1), :e1, by virtue of being generated by :a2 was also generated by :a1. But since wasGeneratedBy is functional, we cannot assert that without :a1 and :a2 becoming identical (sameAs). Jim On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: > 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/ > > > > > > > > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:56:53 UTC