- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:35:34 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 22:54, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> One more question on the proposal. How do you propose to handle derivation
> such as:
>
> wasDerivedFrom(e4,e2,pe2,qualifier(ex:port=smtp,
> ex:section="attachment"),qualifier(ex:fct="attach"))?
This was mentioned in the PROV-O call today. wasDerivedFrom is here
mainly a short-hand for describing a process execution which we don't
know the exact details of.
In PROV-O you would simply specify this using a bnode for the missing
PE and qualified usage/generation.
:e4 prov:wasDerivedFrom :e2 ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy [
a prov:ProcessExecution ;
prov:used :e2 ;
prov:qualifiedUsage [
a prov:Usage ;
prov:entity :e2 ;
ex:fct="attach"
] ;
prov:generated :e4 ;
prov:qualifiedGeneration [
a prov:Generation ;
prov:entity :e4 ;
ex:port :smtp ;
ex:section="attachment"
]
Or, shorter, with inferencing and implicit prov:used (which would
probably be tricky to do in OWL alone):
:e4 prov:wasDerivedFrom :e2 ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy [
prov:qualifiedUsage [
prov:entity :e2 ;
ex:fct="attach"
] ;
prov:qualifiedGeneration [
prov:entity :e4 ;
ex:port :smtp ;
ex:section="attachment"
]
Of course this is longer than an imagined Derivation qualification -
but why make an expanded version of a shortcut?
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 23:36:25 UTC