Re: Provenance Working Group resolution ISSUE-447 and ISSUE-500 (subactivity)

Hi Paul, all

These issues are now closed. Can I check the FAQ has been updated?


On 10/03/2012 08:13 PM, Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D. wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I know this is a tricky issue.  Thanks to you and the work group for 
> considering it (again).
> I think the proposed solution (and pending FAQ/example) may provide 
> the ability to represent subactivities, at least for now.  It will be 
> interesting to see what use cases arise when PROV is put into practice 
> more widely.  The example that I provided 
> ( 
> is obviously a hypothetical one, but one that I believe PROV should 
> support.  As I stated in that thread, I believe capturing the 
> relationship between activities is just as important as capturing the 
> relationship between entities.
> Thanks,
> Bob
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* []
>     *On Behalf Of *Satrajit Ghosh
>     *Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:02 PM
>     *To:* Paul Groth
>     *Cc:* Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D.;
>     *Subject:* Re: Provenance Working Group resolution ISSUE-447 and
>     ISSUE-500 (subactivity)
>     dear paul,
>     thank you for the update.
>         ISSUE-447 (subactivity)
>         Original email:
>         Tracker:
>         Group Response
>         - The Working Group charter identified an initial set of
>         concepts, and
>         made it clear that the working group should not delve into the
>         details
>         of plans and workflows (called then recipe). The charter did
>         not list
>         a notion of subactivity either.
>     i understand trying to stay away from plans and workflows and
>     possibly not relive the uml discussions. however, even in a simple
>     context activities are typically related to each other in a
>     provenance sense, and while time covers some aspect of that, it
>     doesn't in anyway cover sub-activities.
>         - The Working Group considered a notion of subactivity, but
>         does not
>         understand the implication of introducing such a relation to the
>         model. In fact, there is little prior art about this in the
>         provenance
>         community. There is also concern that specifying such a
>         relation would
>         overlap with some workflow specification initiatives.
>     that's what i was hoping a simple relation such as
>     wasRelatedTo(a1, a2, --) would cover this and one that could then
>     be decorated by dcterms:hasPart, partOf, etc.,.
>     also i would love to know about the workflow specification
>     initiatives.. as an architect of a workflow framework for brain
>     imaging, standardizing that effort would be quite useful.
>         - For this reason, the Working Group decided not to provide a
>         normative definition of such a relation. Instead, the Working
>         Group
>         suggests that a relation such as dcterms:hadPart could used by
>         applications, which would be responsible for ensuring its use is
>         consistent with the model. 
>         - The Working Group intends to produce an FAQ page
>         illustrating how
>         such a construct could be used.
>     really looking forward to this faq, especially where it can
>     capture such relations as partOf.
>     cheers,
>     satra

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 08:28:40 UTC