- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:31:15 +0100
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Khalid, I am opposed to introduce wasSubactivityOf without studying constraints/inferences/etc... I don't think this example makes much sense: activity(a1,2011-11-16T00:00:00,2011-11-17T00:00:00) // in 2011 activity(a2,2012-11-16T00:00:00,2012-11-17T00:00:00) // in 2012 wasSubactivity(a1,a2) As indicated previously, it's a whole complete new design that we have to undertake, for which we don't have enough experience. Cheers, Luc On 04/09/12 17:23, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > 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 >> >> -- 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 16:31:52 UTC