- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:23:46 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I would go for option 1 provided that we dont say anything from the point of view of ordering sub activities, with respect to the parent activity. If the only requirement is to have a means to know that one activity is a child activity of another then I dont see a problem in introducing the relation sub-activity. We did some thing similar with collections to a certain degree, when we choose to keep in the DM the membership relation, so why not do the same for activities. Thanks, khalid On 4 September 2012 14:57, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > I would like to kickstart discussion on this public comment. > This has already been asked on several occasions, and this has previously > been raised on the mailing list. > > I essentially see two options: > 1. We change the model and add a sub-activity relation. > 2. We don't change the model, but we come with a good justification for not > changing it. In particular, we previously said this was out of scope. > Perhaps, > we could point to some vocabularies already doing this. > > What are your views? > Regards, > Luc > > > On 06/07/12 18:12, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-447: subactivity relation [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> There is a thread discussing the issue raised by Sutra at >> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJCyKRqtC47OWc_rDRhFcQGdJ-yy2toQBCguUywFGZpHO5Q8Jw@mail.gmail.com >> >> The original email: >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote: >> hello, >> >> i was discussing this with luc and based on his feedback thought it might >> be >> useful to bring this up on the list. >> >> ---- >> question: >> how do you encode that a certain activity "emailing a letter" happened >> during another activity "a meeting"? >> >> for example we conduct research studies/projects. >> >> activity(p1, [prov:type='ex:Project']) >> activity(p2, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=1]) >> activity(p3, [prov:type='ex:MRIScanning', ex:session=2]) >> >> how would i encode that this activity p2 and p3 were conducted during p1? >> how would i encode p3 followed p2? >> >> >> luc's response: >> Regarding your question, there may be a few options: >> you could add time information to your activities. This will help you >> understand their ordering. >> >> Alternatively, if you want an explicit dependency in your graph, then p2 >> may >> generate something >> that starts p3, and/or is consumed by p3 >> >> Finally, prov doesn't have relations between activities, to express their >> nesting, etc. It's important >> but we felt this is not specific to provenance, but to process executions. >> ---- >> >> it's the last point on this response that i was not completely sure about. >> why "relations between activities" is "not specific to provenance, but to >> process executions." >> >> in the above example, one could say: >> >> wasSubtaskOf(p2, p1) >> wasSubtaskOf(p3, p1) >> wasFollowedBy(p2, p3) >> >> any clarification as to why such relations would be outside the realm of >> provenance would be much appreciated. >> >> 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: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:24:17 UTC