- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:23:21 +0000
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
We had discussions earlier about the idea that a PE was an instance of a process which has a recipe and then decided that we could just represent PE hasRecipe R without realizing the process itself in the model. I don't have an opinion about the decision but I bring it up because I think process would be the right thing to be the class for a PE instance, not recipe. One type of instance of a recipe could be a file (text, workflow description, etc.) - a PE wouldn't be an instance of a recipe, but could be an instance of the process the recipe describes. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:07 AM > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org > Subject: PROV-ISSUE-95 (Recipes as Classes): Recipes as classes? [Conceptual > Model] > > > PROV-ISSUE-95 (Recipes as Classes): Recipes as classes? [Conceptual Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95 > > Raised by: James McCusker > On product: Conceptual Model > > This could be part of the conceptual model or formal model. It's a formal > model idea, but it affects the conceptual model in some ways. I was > attempting to model some process executions yesterday and hit on the idea > that the recipe for a process execution could be a class of process execution. > For instance, I was looking at defining a process execution of HTTP 1.1 GET. > Now, the execution is itself an HTTP 1.1 GET, so I immediately thought that > having <HTTP_1.1_GET> be the class of the PE would be a good way to signify > the algorithm that was used for the execution. Of course, if the PE doesn't go > to plan, having the type be of that class wouldn't be correct. But again, that > could be the best way to signify that the process DID go to plan. > > We could still say that we "used" <HTTP_1.1_GET> as well. OWL 2 allows > punning like that. We could even go so far as to give a restriction to a PE of > type <HTTP_1.1_GET> that says something like: > > class HTTP_1.1_GET: > EquivalentTo: > prov:ProcessExecution and prov:used value HTTP_1.1_GET > SubClassOf: > prov:ProcessExecution > >
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:23:49 UTC