Fwd: Auto: public-prov-comments@w3.org autoreply

chairs,

What is the appropriate process for answering comments to public-prov-comments?

It doesn't seem that we should reply to that list, since it then thinks you are giving a comment.

Do we send to the commenter, cc'ing our usual public list?

Also, does the WG coordinate on all responses to feedback? Perhaps I jumped the gun on responding.

Thanks,
Tim


Begin forwarded message:

> From: W3C Postmaster <postmaster@w3.org>
> Subject: Auto: public-prov-comments@w3.org autoreply
> Date: July 6, 2012 9:14:25 AM EDT
> To: lebot@rpi.edu
> 
> Thank you for your comments.  Your message has been received, placed
> in the public archive, and will be considered by the Working Group. 
> You may be contacted for clarification.  You will receive a response
> from a representative of the group in a few weeks.
> 
> ----- original message: ----------------------------------------------
> From lebot@rpi.edu Fri Jul 06 13:14:25 2012
> Received: from smtp8.server.rpi.edu ([128.113.2.228])
> 	by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
> 	(Exim 4.72)
> 	(envelope-from <lebot@rpi.edu>)
> 	id 1Sn8Ma-0000E4-AQ
> 	for public-prov-comments@w3.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:14:25 +0000
> Received: from vpn-210-6.net.rpi.edu (vpn-210-6.net.rpi.edu [128.113.210.6])
> 	(authenticated bits=0)
> 	by smtp8.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q66DDtb6032006
> 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
> 	Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:13:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: relations between activites
> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEB0C299-3CE6-44B8-B176-75E3FDF5F3C6"
> From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
> In-Reply-To: <CA+A4wOkwDaNkmbFpWAXLxUi4FPobi_AMTtZ4UPOG3QmB1nB3aw@mail.gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:13:55 -0400
> Cc: public-prov-comments@w3.org
> Message-Id: <A7D2A468-3ACD-469E-8BCB-BE2DFD211559@rpi.edu>
> References: <CA+A4wOkwDaNkmbFpWAXLxUi4FPobi_AMTtZ4UPOG3QmB1nB3aw@mail.gmail.com>
> To: Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu>
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
> X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0)
> X-RPI-SA-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 11.00] HTML_MESSAGE,24029(0),22490(-25)
> X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing
> X-Canit-Stats-ID: 50840041 - fd20488a4f1f
> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.228
> Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.113.2.228; envelope-from=lebot@rpi.edu; helo=smtp8.server.rpi.edu
> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
> X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Sn8Ma-0000E4-AQ d448a18dcfc34a5cc743b83e646b8bbe
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail=_CEB0C299-3CE6-44B8-B176-75E3FDF5F3C6
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Satra,
> 
> Since the notion of conceptually grouping resources is popular is so =
> many other models, it doesn't seem necessary to recreate it.
> 
> I plan to use dcterms:hasPart / isPartOf to model sub activities.
> 
> I've seen others use http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl#part_of
> 
> SKOS broader might apply, too.
> 
> 
> As far as  your wasFollowedBy, prov:wasInformedBy is similar but I think =
> a different meaning than you intend.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tim Lebo
> 
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Satrajit Ghosh wrote:
> 
>> hello,
>> =20
>> i was discussing this with luc and based on his feedback thought it =
> might be useful to bring this up on the list.
>> =20
>> ----
>> question:
>> how do you encode that a certain activity "emailing a letter" happened =
> during another activity "a meeting"?
>> =20
>> for example we conduct research studies/projects.
>> =20
>> activity(p1, [prov:type=3D'ex:Project'])
>> activity(p2, [prov:type=3D'ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=3D1])
>> activity(p3, [prov:type=3D'ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=3D2])
>> =20
>> how would i encode that this activity p2 and p3 were conducted during =
> p1?=20
>> how would i encode p3 followed p2?
>> =20
>> =20
>> luc's response:
>> Regarding your question, there may be a few options:
>> you could add time information to your activities. This will help you =
> understand their ordering.
>> =20
>> Alternatively, if you want an explicit dependency in your graph, then =
> p2 may generate something
>> that starts p3, and/or is consumed by p3
>> =20
>> Finally, prov doesn't have relations between activities, to express =
> their nesting, etc. It's important
>> but we felt this is not specific to provenance, but to process =
> executions.
>> ----
>> =20
>> it's the last point on this response that i was not completely sure =
> about. why "relations between activities" is "not specific to =
> provenance, but to process executions."
>> =20
>