Re: actions related to collections

I find myself somewhat concerned by what appears to be scope creep associated 
with collections.  It seems to me that in the area, the provenance model is 
straying in the the domain of application design.  If collections were just 
sets, I could probably hold my nose and say nothing, but this talk of having 
provenance define various forms of collection indexing seems to me to be out of 

So I think this is somewhat in agreement with what Satya says here, though I 
remain unconvinced that the notions of collections and derivation-by-insertion, 
etc., actually *need* to be in the main provenance ontology - why not let 
individual applications define their own provenance extension terms?


On 18/04/2012 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<>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]**track/actions/76<>
>> [2]**track/actions/77<>

Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 11:05:00 UTC