W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-369 (drop-startByActivity): Should we drop wasStartedByActivity? [prov-dm]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:51:36 -0400
Message-Id: <954B90DC-43CB-4DA1-B980-0B5C9A4DCEF9@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

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).


> Luc 
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:52:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:14 UTC