Hi all,
The discussion on modeling of roles could not be completed during the
ontology group call today due to lack of time.
We have another scheduled another call tomorrow at 12:00noon US EST using
Skype (if you are interested in joining this discussion please send your
Skype id to my mail address).
Thanks.
Best,
Satya
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
>