- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:51:36 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
below. On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:57 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-369 (drop-startByActivity): Should we drop wasStartedByActivity? [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/369 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm > > > There are regular comments about wasStartedByActivity. > > MacTed was saying why don't we also have wasStartedByAgent. > > Someone else was saying, why don't we have wasEndedByActivity? ... and ByAgent. > > In the spirit of simplification, we could drop the concept. > Whenever we want to write > > wasStartedByActivity(a2,a2) > > we would instead have to write > > wasStartedBy(a2,e) > wasGeneratedBy(e,a1) > > for some entity. > > > Thoughts? While the diagram in PROV-O's starting points diagram [1] shows one essential relation among Agents (acted) and one essential relation among Entities (wasDerived), there are __two__ for Activities (wasInformed and wasStartedByActivity). I think this is reason to attempt simplification. Between wasStartedBy (an Entity -- i.e. a Start) and wasInformedBy (an Activity -- i.e. a Communication), don't we have enough ways to model an Activity starting an Activity? I still see wasStartedByActivity as a kind of Communication, and would rather replace it with just Communication (and not some specialization of Communication). The conflict is some notion that "triggers" are not "used", but I cannot see how this could be the case. (Perhaps I'm exposing my lack of OPM legacy). -Tim > Luc
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:52:07 UTC