- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 17:08:20 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FA944F4.2050801@ncl.ac.uk>
that seems straightforward. it includes the case where 'e' is a signal, which may sometimes matter to mention explicitly -Paolo On 5/8/12 4:58 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > > Yes overloading was ruled out. > > Another option in the spirit of what Tim suggested is: > > wasStartedBy(a2,e,a1,t,attrs) > > With optional activity a1, entity e, time t. > > We would allow > wasStartedBy(a2,e,-,t,attrs):The current form > wasStartedBy(a2,-,a1,t,attrs): equivalent to wasstartedbyactivity > wasStartedBy(a2,e,a1,t,attrs): the form where entity is explicit as requested by some > > Thoughts? > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 8 May 2012, at 16:42, "Paolo Missier" <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> that activities are not entities was decided a long time ago, I think (I have no access to the archives at the moment). changing >> that would have unclear implications on the "provenance of activities". >> I also seem to remember that wasStartedBy was indeed initially overloaded as suggested here, and that was found to be confusing. >> >> -Paolo >> >> >> On 5/8/12 3:02 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote: >>> Hi Stian, >>> instead of removing the constraint that entity and activity are disjoint we could >>> also (as another possibility) have activities OR entities as possible domain >>> of wasStartedBy. Now that we agreed on having an OWL-RL ++ profile, >>> this would be possible. >>> >>> Thus, we would drop wasStartedByActivity, since wasStartedBy would >>> cover already the desired functionality, right? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel >>> >>> 2012/5/8 Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk <mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu <mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote: >>> >>> > +1, repositioning wasStartedByActivity as a "blurrier" form of wasStartedBy seems to finally find a place for it in the model. >>> > Though, like Khalid, I'm not sure it will be used much, or correctly. >>> >>> It will certainly still be confusing, as it was for me. As you said, >>> most wasStartedBy() would also come with a twin used() relationship >>> (and therefore imply a wasInformedBy() relation). At some point >>> wasStartedBy was sub-property of wasInformedBy (making the choice >>> simple) - but not anymore. >>> >>> As Luc raised, why not also wasEndedByActivity, wasStartedByAgent etc.? >>> >>> >>> So it might just not be worth it to keep wasStartedByActivity(). It's >>> a bad sign if it's confusing to even the ontology designers, then how >>> is any meaningful provenance exchange happen, where one party apply >>> wasInformedBy like wasStartedByActivity, and the other the opposite? >>> >>> >>> >>> A second solution would be to remove the constraint that activity and >>> entity are disjoint. Then you could say wasStartedBy(a2, a1), >>> wasEndedBy(a2, a3) etc. - the activity can play the role of an entity >>> as well, rather than inventing invisible phantom token entities. We >>> are talking blurry provenance here, right, we don't know quite the >>> nature of the interaction. >>> >>> >>> >>> > How can it be reframed so that wasStartedByActivity can "grow" in details like Derivation does with hadActivity, hadUsage, >>> and hadGeneration? >>> >>> By adding a separate wasStartedBy() I would believe you have given all >>> the information (as an activity can only be started once). Or is it >>> allowed to be wasStartedBy() two or more entities..? Luc? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>> School of Computer Science >>> The University of Manchester >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ----------- ~oo~ -------------- >> Paolo Missier -Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk,pmissier@acm.org >> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK >> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:08:50 UTC