- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:24:28 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAExK0Dcg3YvyD29KZt67aQEiDVq3Cj9uZ2dVfD8oXtss+Q68Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Tim, 2012/3/16 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> > Daniel, Jun, > > > > On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: > > Hi Jun, > > you have an example in DM, but to keep it short: > If I have a computer program (cp1) that generates a log file (lf1) and > starts a web service (ws1), then > ws1 is not informed by cp1 (it does not consume any of the > generated outputs by the computer program), but it was started by it. > > On the other side, if I have a third activity (a3) that uses lf1 generated > by cp1, > then a3 wasInformedBy cp1. > > Is that more clear? > > > I think it would be helpful to form this example using a bit more PROV-N > or PROV-O. > > > Best, > Daniel > > 2012/3/16 Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> > >> 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.:) >> > > Jun, when you say ProvRDF, do you mean the OWL file? > "ProvRDF" means the mappings at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF > and is different from the OWL file. > > >> 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? >> > > > ^^^ This is a perfect phrasing. I agree that to be started by another > activity implies that some entity was transferred. > why? what if one activity just triggers another one withouth transferring it anything? > > > :activity_2 > prov:wasStartedByActivity :activity_1 > . > > ==> > > :activity_1 > prov:generated :go > . > > :activity_2 > prov:used :go; > prov:wasStartedByActivity :activity_1; > prov:wasInformedBy :activity_1; > . > > > -Tim > > Thanks, Daniel > > > >> 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<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 13:25:09 UTC