- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:01:10 +0200
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim, I didn't see start as a subtype of usage. A long time ago, there was no enthusiasm for subtyping usage. So, i didn't see the trigger as being used. Luc On 22/04/2012 19:18, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Luc, > > Are you saying that there are entities that trigger an activity that are not used by that same activity? > > I would think that anything that triggered an activity would also be used by the activity (the trigger was used to start the activity). > > Are triggers properly treated in PROV, or we using some legacy terms to discuss these concepts? > > Thanks, > Tim > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:37 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > >> Hi Tim, >> >> This is not a Communication since the entity generated by the starter is only trigger for the started activity (hence, not used). >> >> What would be the case for dropping it? >> >> Workflow people, what's your view? >> >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:37, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker"<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-340 (start-by-activity-is-comm): Start by Activity is Communication; drop it. [prov-dm] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/340 >>> >>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >>> On product: prov-dm >>> >>> Start by Activity continues to be an outlier in this model. It's just a simple case of communication. >>> >>> Propose to drop "start by activity" and address it with existing structures and an entry in a best practices document. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:02:08 UTC