- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:04:55 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/102
Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
On product: Formal Model
The Conceptual Model allows the definition of *recipe links* on a ProcessExceution. In particular in the workflow example - - it would be useful to have the prov:recipe property or equivalent.
I propose:
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hadRecipe">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;AsymmetricProperty"/>
<!-- functional? <rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty"/> -->
<rdf:type rdf:resource="&owl;IrreflexiveProperty"/>
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en"
>had recipe</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en"
>The ProcessExecution activity performed was described by
the given recipe resource. Process specifications, as
referred to by recipe links, are out of scope of this
specification</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#ProcessExecution"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
I am not sure about the exact term and propose "prov:hadRecipe" here according to the general guidelines (verb in past, pointing to the past)
As pointed out by others the PE might not have gone according to the plan, so it should be quite loose, not "prov:executedAccordingToRecipe".
Note that ISSUE-95 discusses if Recipe should be a class or not - I've left the rdfs:range open above as the recipe model is not specified by this model - a marker-class prov:Recipe might be useful, but also confusing.
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 10:04:57 UTC