- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:55:07 +0100
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|71959beaf7345b48eee27d2ff960a4ddo3HKuR08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F8F1C1B>
Hi Satya, Thanks for your input. Do I understand correctly that those two collections do not change: a cell line has a given number of cells, and the cohort involves a set of patients. So, yes, I understand that removal/insertion are not necessary for such static collections. Regards, Luc On 18/04/12 17:35, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi all, > The issue I had raised last week is that collection is an important > provenance construct, but the assumption of only key-value pair based > collection is too narrow and the relations derivedByInsertionFrom, > Derivation-by-Removal are over specifications that are not required. > > I have collected the following examples for collection, which only > require the definition of the collection in DM5 (collection of > entities) and they don't have (a) a key-value structure, and (b) > derivedByInsertionFrom, derivedByRemovalFrom relations are not needed: > 1. Cell line is a collection of cells used in many biomedical > experiments. The provenance of the cell line (as a collection) > include, who submitted the cell line, what method was used to > authenticate the cell line, when was the given cell line contaminated? > The provenance of the cells in a cell line include, what is the source > of the cells (e.g. organism)? > > 2. A patient cohort is a collection of patients satisfying some > constraints for a research study. The provenance of the cohort > include, what eligibility criteria were used to identify the cohort, > when was the cohort identified? The provenance of the patients in a > cohort may include their health provider etc. > > Hope this helps our discussion. > > Thanks. > > Best, > Satya > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > > > Hi Jun and Satya, > > Following today's call, ACTION-76 [1] and ACTION-77 [2] were > raised against you, as we agreed. > > Cheers, > Luc > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/76 > [2] https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/77 > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:57:00 UTC