W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 01:23:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXt=ECi9jXCeVj9X7pO9wc9my+nqj8HbUJEgTd-+yL7p_nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 21, 2011 10:07 AM, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> -3.3: Note, how can you say that an agent can be a PE, when entity and
activity are supposed to be disjoint.

Really? Disjoint? That is certainly new to me, and a similar constraint is
something that has bothered me in OPM-V.

Then this raises the question, if an agent can control an activity, but an
activity can't be an agent (and thus control another activity), how would
you model such activity-activity control? By generating a new agent?

I must admit I have not yet looked at Yolanda's

For instance in scientific workflows you can have one process controlling
the start/stop of another (based on used values), or subprocesses which are
spawned, monitored and controlled by the mother activity.
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 01:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC