Re: [provo] Difference between wasInformedBy and wasStartedByActivity (ttl examples)

Hi Luc, Tim.
One question: what would be the domain of the unqualified wasStartedBy
relationship?
(talking form the RDF PROV-O perspective, not the DM. The DM new draft
looks good to me).

Would it be (Entity U Activity) or just Entity? In order to support
"identifier (a1) for the activity
that generated the (possibly unspecified) entity (e)" it should be the
former, right?.

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/5/8 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>  Hi Tim,
> Yes, it would remain EntityInvolvement, with optional hadActivity.
>  Luc
>
>  Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 8 May 2012, at 22:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>   Luc,
>
>  I like how either an Entity or Activity can be optional in a Start. It
> seems flexible for the variety of perspectives one may have or want to take.
>
>  Would Start always be a EntityInvolvement with an optional hadActivity?
> I am comfortable with this, since regardless of whether you name/describe
> the entity, the trigger was involved.
>
>  +1 to the new draft. It seems to resolve my concerns.
>
>  Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>  On May 8, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>  Hi Stian, Paolo, all,
>
> I have encoded the proposal
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/31e2dc0de82d/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html
>
> If people are happy, we can then adjust wasEndedBy similarly.
> I propose to take a vote on this on Thursday.
>
> Luc
>
> On 08/05/12 17:06, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> That dual-mode style would confuse the interpretation of wasStartedBy, the
> activity becomes a token (and thus and entity)
>
> Perhaps better would be to add the activity as an optional parameter to
> wasStartedBy in dm and add prov:hadActivity/prov:startedByActivity to
> prov:Start. It would mirror the activity of derivations.
>
> An activity start, written wasStartedBy(id,a,e,t,a2, attrs) in PROV-N, has:
>
> id: an OPTIONAL identifier for the activity start;
> (..)
> activity: an OPTIONAL activity (a2) which generated the (possibly
> unspecified) entity (e)
>
> attributes: an OPTIONAL set (attrs)of attribute-value pairs representing
> additional information about this activity start.
>
> Then mirror this for wasEndedBy.
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> On May 8, 2012 3:03 PM, "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>