- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:37:40 -0400
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On May 1, 2012, at 4:16 AM, Jun Zhao wrote: > My only worry I that people might use wasInformedBy to express this 'trigger' relationship between activities, without noticing the subtlety or choice. What does MacTed say about wasInformedBy? > Quotes from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-o_draft_review_2_April_2012#Ted : Further, I think there should be a new prov:wasStartedByAgent (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity, if an Entity can act...), parallel to prov:wasStartedByActivity. It seems to me that prov:wasStartedBy is the indefinite super- property, used when you *don't know* what class started the current Activity, with subproperties of prov:wasStartedByAgent and prov:wasStartedByActivity (and *possibly* prov:wasStartedByEntity), which are used when you *do* know the class of the starting, er, entity (not prov:Entity, but general RDF entity). -Tim > Jun > > Sent from my iPad > > On 30 Apr 2012, at 11:57, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-369 (drop-startByActivity): Should we drop wasStartedByActivity? [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/369 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: prov-dm >> >> >> There are regular comments about wasStartedByActivity. >> >> MacTed was saying why don't we also have wasStartedByAgent. >> >> Someone else was saying, why don't we have wasEndedByActivity? ... and ByAgent. >> >> In the spirit of simplification, we could drop the concept. >> Whenever we want to write >> >> wasStartedByActivity(a2,a2) >> >> we would instead have to write >> >> wasStartedBy(a2,e) >> wasGeneratedBy(e,a1) >> >> for some entity. >> >> >> Thoughts? >> Luc >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:38:11 UTC