- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:42:54 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Stian, >> I am confused. Are you talking about wasStartedByActivity or wasInformedBy? >> I guess you are talking about wasStartedByActivity. And I think this is >> precisely why Tim is also pushing to keep only one of them in the DM. Good try! > > A wasInformedBy B says that B used X, wasGeneratedBy A. If we also > know entity X and how it was used and generated, wasInformedBy is just > restating that. Do you mean to say that A wasInformedBy B --> there is an X that wasGeneratedBy B, and used by A > > A wasStartedByActivity B says that B wasStartedBy X, which > wasGeneratedBy A. If we also know that entity X and how it started A > and was generated by B, then wasStartedByActivity is just restating > that. A wasStartedByActivity B -> A wasStartedBy X, which wasGeneratedBy B Although my understanding is that wasStartedByActivity was not meant as a shortcut, but for cases where X is truly unknown, for expressing control-flow relationship between activities. This is the 'hidden trigger' case that Tim said that he might have missed. cheers, Jun > > > So both are shortcuts, and should have value as such where we don't > know much about X, or where we add more data to that indirect > relationship. > >
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43:24 UTC