- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:27:06 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Daniel, Thanks for the clarification. The ProvRDF doesn't provide definitions of these terms, so I looked at them simply from the logic point of view.:) I guess I should go read DM but it might be faster if I can get an answer from you. Can you give me an example to show that an activity a1 was started by another activity a2, while a1 was /not/ actually informed by a2? Sorry if I am raising a repeated technical discussion. If you or others could point me to relevant issues to look at, I would most appreciate it. This will help me to decide where this term should belong to in the prov-o spec and whether an additional example is needed. cheers, Jun On 16/03/2012 11:00, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Hi Jun, > I don't think this is appropriate: wasInformedBy expresses dependencies > within activities > (i.e., p2 generated e1 and p1 used p1), while wasStartedByActivity just > indicates that p2 started p1. > > In both cases there is a dependency, but I don't think it's enough to make > one subclass of the other. > > Thanks, > Daniel > > 2012/3/16 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> > >> PROV-ISSUE-329 (jzhao): prov:wasStartedByActivity sub-property of >> prov:wasInformedBy? [mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/329 >> >> Raised by: Jun Zhao >> On product: mapping prov-dm<-> prov-o >> >> Should prov:wasStartedByActivity be sub-property of prov:wasInformedBy? >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 11:27:35 UTC