- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:21:41 +0000
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 14:35, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > Likewise. A lot of people who I've talked to don't object to "Activity" as > much as I do, mostly because of the use of activity to talk about things > like volcanic activity, glacial activity, and so on. I still think that > those imply the volcano or glacier are agents in the process, but if I'm the > only one who's being picky, I'll drop it and not report the issue. I'm also picky, but not insistingly so. :-) Perhaps the two of us can accept Activity for now, but have in the back of our mind to try to think of any good "no agent, not an activity" examples which would easily be described with PROV. I'm not sure if the provenance of a glacier is the best fit.. :) I mainly objected because of the preferred style of using PEs/activities to model "state transitions" between static entities which are representing "the same thing in the world". If :roofWithWater is derived from :dryRoof and :rain - then there was now an "activity" called Raining which caused the transition - but who performs the Raining activity? The rain? The weather? The cloud? The roof? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 15:22:34 UTC