- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:13:44 +0100
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Yes, those are the interpretations from https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#component-1--entities-and-activities On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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. >> >> > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 13:14:37 UTC