Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a subproperty of
used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of Recipe/Plan already
(this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need anything
other than used?

Jim

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now part of
> formal
> > model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
> > isn't that thread relevant?
>
> It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
> rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan as a
> class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of attributes
> you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
> the plan.
>
> I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it relies
> on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
> the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple link, and
> I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or  be much in
> conflict with ISSUE-95.
>
> I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe
> - we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we go for
> ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.
>
>
> We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>
>


-- 
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