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

hi paul,

if i were to expand that suggestion, i suspect this is what it would look
like:

activity(project1, -, -)
activity(subproject1, -, -, [dcterms:isPartOf=project1])

i was proposing something a little more explicit although the above will
suit our current needs:

wasRelatedTo(subproject1, project1, [prov:type='dcterms:isPartOf'])

i do think as rdf triples all of the above approaches would return the same
result for a query about subactivties, but perhaps the explicit relation
would be less costly on average.

thanks for considering this.

cheers,

satra

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Satra,
>
> We put a simple statement in our FAQ here:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ but I think you are looking
> for a bit more guidance. What else would help?
>
> In terms of standardising workflow languages there's BPEL and XPDL and
> I'm sure a bunch of others. Maybe someone else on the list can
> comment.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Satrajit Ghosh <satra@mit.edu> wrote:
> > dear paul,
> >
> > thank you for the update.
> >
> >> ISSUE-447 (subactivity)
> >>
> >> Original email:
> >>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Jul/0003.html
> >>
> >> Tracker: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/447
> >>
> >> 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
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> Assistant Professor
> - Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group |
>   Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science
> - The Network Institute
> VU University Amsterdam
>