<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Sorry, this email didn't reach dm yesterday.</p>
<p>François<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Message transféré --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Sujet :
</th>
<td>Re: Necessity of ActivityDescription [was: IVOA
Provenance DM -RFC- answers to comments]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Date : </th>
<td>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:17:21 +0100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">De : </th>
<td>François Bonnarel
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr"><francois.bonnarel@astro.unistra.fr></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap">Pour : </th>
<td>Ole Streicher <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ole@aip.de"><ole@aip.de></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dm@ivoa.net">dm@ivoa.net</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Hi all
Le 26/11/2018 à 13:20, Ole Streicher a écrit :
> Hi Markus,
>
> On 26.11.18 13:01, Markus Demleitner wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 08:26:09PM +0100, Mireille LOUYS wrote:
>>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ProvenanceRFC">http://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ProvenanceRFC</a>
>>>> I've posted the following to the Wiki, but I thought having it on the
>>>> list might be more conducive to discussions, so here's what I my
>>>> thoughts were while reviewing this.
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: let's only have the core model in 1.0. We can always add
>>>> extensions in 1.1.
>>> we need the ActivityDescription class and Parameter class to be able to
>>> search for some specific processing type on the data.
>>> Activity is only the process launched for the computation.
>>> It does not hold the details of the methods , because those details are
>>> factorised in the ActivityDescription class.
>> You mean "Find me all source extractions being done on the images of
>> this data collection"? That *does* sound like a fairly basic thing to
>> want to do, yes, and from what I see in the current Activity model, it
>> would, indeed, seem to be impossible just with what's there.
> I do not see the point here. We do not have a common vocabulary on
> activities (or activity descriptions) (yet), so to find out all source
> extractions, you need some domain knowledge about the activity -- like
> its name, input and output roles.
>
> But if you have the name an, you may just query "give me all activities
> which have [an activity description with] this name and where my images
> were used as 'input'".
Yes , I agree with Ole there (;-):-)). It's perfectly possible to select
among activities (and discover generated entities) by the
Activitydescription name they are attached to.
>
> These vocabularies are not planned for (the first version of)
> VO-Provenance, and I guess they would take quite some time to develop,
> given that there are so many possible special activities out there. Just
> have a look to the ESO pipelines; it seems difficult to impossible to
> classify them in a manner that your query could be done without domain
> knowledge.
Whe querying a provenance service you may first query the
activitydescriptions. The user can then study their names, annotations,
linked documentation.
She can then use this new knoledge to make some search among activities
and entities.
Cheers
François
>> I'm sure the W3C has a plan for this -- do you know what it is? Can't
>> we just follow them or is there a use case we have they don't?
> W3C does not deal with queries. They try to describe what is there, and
> they assume a domain specific model on top.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ole
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>