- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:16:40 -0500
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > I'm not sure - now we can't have a planned activity without an agent - > so there will be phantom agents appearing. ^^ is there a separate issue for this? It seems odd that an Activity can't mention a plan without also bringing an Agent to the game. -Tim > > There is also no way to say that the associated agent is actually > *performing* the activity. And so we only know that an agent performed > something with relation to the activity, and that something might or > might not have been following the associated plan. > > These are DM issues, though.. so you can close this issue. I would > have to think of a good use-case of a plan/recipe which there is no > agent following - perhaps that's not possible? > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:41, Daniel Garijo > <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 02:21:40 UTC