- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:42:37 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > 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. Are triggers properly treated in PROV, or we using some legacy terms to discuss these concepts? -Tim > > 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 Thursday, 26 April 2012 18:43:08 UTC