- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:10:33 +0100
- 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 -Paolo 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