- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:01:45 -0400
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 16:02:38 UTC
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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. > I think that's where the punning comes in. When treated as an individual, the recipe is the plan. When treated as a class, it is the group of things that conform to that plan. Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 16:02:38 UTC