- From: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:01:49 -0400
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: "Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D." <Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>, public-prov-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+A4wOnL2exwAeJtc-nnbpc++kyz5xhoo7DPueYiEFMxHrPYew@mail.gmail.com>
dear paul, thank you for the update. ISSUE-447 (subactivity) > > Original email: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0003.html > > Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447 > > Group Response > > - The Working Group charter identified an initial set of concepts, and > made it clear that the working group should not delve into the details > of plans and workflows (called then recipe). The charter did not list > a notion of subactivity either. > i understand trying to stay away from plans and workflows and possibly not relive the uml discussions. however, even in a simple context activities are typically related to each other in a provenance sense, and while time covers some aspect of that, it doesn't in anyway cover sub-activities. > - The Working Group considered a notion of subactivity, but does not > understand the implication of introducing such a relation to the > model. In fact, there is little prior art about this in the provenance > community. There is also concern that specifying such a relation would > overlap with some workflow specification initiatives. > that's what i was hoping a simple relation such as wasRelatedTo(a1, a2, --) would cover this and one that could then be decorated by dcterms:hasPart, partOf, etc.,. also i would love to know about the workflow specification initiatives. as an architect of a workflow framework for brain imaging, standardizing that effort would be quite useful. > - For this reason, the Working Group decided not to provide a > normative definition of such a relation. Instead, the Working Group > suggests that a relation such as dcterms:hadPart could used by > applications, which would be responsible for ensuring its use is > consistent with the model. > - The Working Group intends to produce an FAQ page illustrating how > such a construct could be used. > really looking forward to this faq, especially where it can capture such relations as partOf. cheers, satra
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:02:38 UTC