Re: PROV-ISSUE-205 (optional-activity-in-generation-record): optional activity in generation record [prov-dm]

Hi Luc,
I don't think it would affect the ontology: we could create an instance of
a "Generation" and say that the qualified
entity is the generated entity. Something like:

ex:g1 a wfprov:Generation;
         prov:hadQualifiedEntity ex:generatedEntity;
         ext:generatedAt [ time:inDateTimeXSD "2011-10-21T09:21:31Z" ]. #Or
whatever the user wants to use for asserting time

However, I think that Stephan was against using orphan generations like in
the example. IMO it is a bit tricky to find
a generation without activity, but it covers the use case.
Best,
Daniel

2012/1/11 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> **
> Hi Tim, Satya, all
>
> How would the following proposal
> *   making the activity identifier optional in the generation record*
> would affect the ontology?
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> On 12/21/2011 09:57 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-205 (optional-activity-in-generation-record): optional activity in generation record [prov-dm]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/205
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm
>
>
> We may want to assert the time at which an entity is created. The placeholder for such time information is a generation record. But a generation mandates the presence of an activity identifier. But it may not be known.
>
> It would be nice if the activity identifier was made optional in the generation record.
>
> Does this have implications for the ontology?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>