W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-447: subactivity relation [prov-dm]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:10:33 +0100
Message-ID: <504627F9.7040601@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
borrowing a partOf relation from other vocabs is a much better and safer option IMO --
so +1 for the dc:hasPart option


  On 9/4/12 4:18 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> On 04/09/12 15:58, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:
>>> Hello Luc,
>>> I'd support option 1. I think it has relevance to provenance, in that if you say A wasSubactivityOf B, then any information 
>>> about the provenance of A is part of the provenance of B.
>>> I can't recall why we said it was out of scope before. I think the term "wasSubtaskOf" may imply the wrong thing, i.e. that the 
>>> statement is about what was planned rather than (or as well as) what occurred, and other vocabularies must already cover this 
>>> non-provenance assertion.
>> I don't think that the relation from sub activity to activity was the concern for scope -- it was the consequences of what 
>> "provenance of A is part of the provenance of B" would mean.
> Agreed.
>> I would be content with a "silent" relation that does nothing but tuck an activity as part of another (why not just use 
>> dcterms:hasPart)?
> Yes, good suggestion. This means that this relation is not part of PROV. Our FAQ/response could
> make this clear, and we could suggest the use of dcterms:hasPart.
>> I don't have the ability or energy to revisit all of the discussions that we've had to see how any assertion should or should 
>> not  apply to an activities' sub activities.
> The change is not trivial, and should have been considered at the beginning of the design. It was not because it was not in our 
> charter.
> Luc 
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:11:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:21 UTC