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

Re: Provenance Working Group resolution ISSUE-447 and ISSUE-500 (subactivity)

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:31:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRp6LkGz787+tQKigshkohss=5m8kqwzAqzbTz7SF9B9_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Hi Satra,

We put a simple statement in our FAQ here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ but I think you are looking
for a bit more guidance. What else would help?

In terms of standardising workflow languages there's BPEL and XPDL and
I'm sure a bunch of others. Maybe someone else on the list can


On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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

Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
Assistant Professor
- Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
  Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
- The Network Institute
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 13:32:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:50:04 UTC