- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:20:15 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, 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>
Hi Tim, Yes, see my non-converging discussion with Stephan on ISSUE-203. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 9 Mar 2012, at 02:22, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > > 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 05:23:23 UTC