- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 17:09:53 +0100
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, public-prov-wg@w3.org, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkoMNpq4yf5WMvfkpQzeANHgW0mL0UEa2RF9bLRu-D8+A@mail.gmail.com>
Agreed, that would raise questions like which wasGeneratedBy(?a1, ?a2) conflicting/overlapping with wasStartedBy. I was thinking of activity vs agent, but wasStartedBy is not to agents anymore -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester On May 8, 2012 4:42 PM, "Paolo Missier" <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> > >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Timothy Lebo <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, UKhttp://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:10:28 UTC