Re: PROV-ISSUE-148 (WasScheduledAfter): wasScheduledAfter definition is difficult to understand

Hi Khalid,

The relation  wasScheduledAfter was superseded by (the overloaded) 
wasStartedBy,
itself supersed by wasStartedByActivity (see resolution [1]).

I therefore propose to close this issue unless you suggest otherwise.

Regards,
Luc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-15#resolution_2


On 11/10/2011 03:47 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-148 (WasScheduledAfter): wasScheduledAfter definition is difficult to understand
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/148
>
> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
> On product:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Trying to model wasScheduledAfter in PROV-O, I found it difficult to understand what wasScheduledAfter means.
>
> According to the definition: "Given two activity records identified by pe1 and pe2, the record wasScheduledAfter(pe2,pe1) holds, if and only if there are two entity records identified by e1 and e2, such that wasControlledBy(pe1,e1,qualifier(prov:role="end")) and wasControlledBy(pe2,e2,qualifier(prov:role="start")) and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)."
>
> There are three issues:
> 1- Why does the agent e2 needs to be derived from the agent e1?
>
> 2- Can an agent be derived from another? (This second issue is secondary).
>
> 3- There is an assumption in the definition that the activity pe1 needs to be explicitly terminated by an agent? I guess there are cases, the activity will terminates without an agent intervention, and will be followed by the execution of other activity. According to the above definition, in those cases, we will not be able to use wasScheduledAfter.
>
> khalid
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 13:21:16 UTC