Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link [Formal Model]

Hi Stian,
this issue is still raised and pending review.
now we have Plans to link an agent and a plan to an activity,
with an Association.

I think that we have addressed this issue, and it could be closed. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Daniel

2011/9/28 Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>

>  I don’t know that it’s a big deal, but I think of hadRecipe as
> potentially very indirect rather than a subclass of used. I’d like to
> assert that the “software development” PE was intended to satisfy the plan
> as documented in “Work Breakdown Structure element 2.7” but in a use case
> like that, it seems a stretch to say the PE used the plan versus that I’m
> just asserting that the PE was intended to fulfill the plan (perhaps just
> the selection of this PE versus another one was affected by the plan and,
> after the selection of the PE, the plan was not directly used to guide it,
> etc.).****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim McCusker
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:21 AM
> *To:* Stian Soiland-Reyes
> *Cc:* Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe
> link [Formal Model]****
>
> ** **
>
> If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a subproperty of
> used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of Recipe/Plan already
> (this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need anything
> other than used?****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim****
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
> soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:****
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now part of
> formal
> > model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
> > isn't that thread relevant?****
>
> It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
> rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan as a
> class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of attributes
> you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
> the plan.
>
> I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it relies
> on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
> the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple link, and
> I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or  be much in
> conflict with ISSUE-95.
>
> I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe
> - we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we go for
> ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.
>
>
> We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
> http://tw.rpi.edu****
>