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

Hi Luc,

The faq has been updated.

cheers
Paul


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi Paul, all
>
> These issues are now closed. Can I check the FAQ has been updated?
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
>
> 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 (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0242.html) 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:* satrajit.ghosh@gmail.com [mailto:satrajit.ghosh@gmail.com<satrajit.ghosh@gmail.com>]
> *On Behalf Of *Satrajit Ghosh
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:02 PM
> *To:* Paul Groth
> *Cc:* Freimuth, Robert, Ph.D.; public-prov-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Provenance Working Group resolution ISSUE-447 and
> ISSUE-500 (subactivity)
>
>  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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>