James Michaelis Provenance Model Joshua Taylor 2
From Semantic Portal Wiki
- Question is for the Presentation: James Michaelis Provenance Model
- Question is asked by: Joshua Taylor
- The Question is: Inference rule (1) from 6.1 One Step Inferences would seem to have some unintuitive, at least to me, consequences. For instance, it is easy to imagine extending Figure 2 (which depicts John controlling the process Bake which uses a number of ingredients and produces Cake) by adding a Make Fork process controlled Factory Worker, using Steel and Fork Mold, and produces Fork. Then, Susan might control an Eat Cake that uses Cake and Fork, and produces No Cake (or perhaps, Empty Plate). It seems that Inference Rule (1) would allow us to conclude that Eat Cake was triggered by Bake, and that Eat Cake 'was triggered by Make Fork. Recall Definition 7 (Process Triggered by Process) A connection of a process P2 to a process P1 by a "was triggered by" edge indicates that the start of process P1 was required for P2 to be able to complete. Are there any provisions for multiple possibilities? E.g., Eat Cake does not really depend on a particular instance of Make Fork, just about any Make Fork would do. Could this formalism handle something like recognizing that a codex was written over at some time between 1237 and 1342 without knowing by whom and exactly when? Could it be extended to handle such cases?
Answer
2 to a process P1 by a "was triggered by" edge indicates that the start of process P1 was required for P2 to be able to complete.'' Are there any provisions for multiple possibilities? E.g., ''Eat Cake'' does not really depend on a particular instance of ''Make Fork'', just about any ''Make Fork'' would do. Could this formalism handle something like recognizing that a codex was written over ''at some time between 1237 and 1342'' without knowing by whom and exactly when? Could it be extended to handle such cases?'>
Facts about James Michaelis Provenance Model Joshua Taylor 2RDF feed
| Question asked | Inference rule (1) from 6.1 One Step In … Inference rule (1) from 6.1 One Step Inferences would seem to have some unintuitive, at least to me, consequences. For instance, it is easy to imagine extending Figure 2 (which depicts John controlling the process Bake which uses a number of ingredients and produces Cake) by adding a Make Fork process controlled Factory Worker, using Steel and Fork Mold, and produces Fork. Then, Susan might control an Eat Cake that uses Cake and Fork, and produces No Cake (or perhaps, Empty Plate). It seems that Inference Rule (1) would allow us to conclude that Eat Cake was triggered by Bake, and that Eat Cake 'was triggered by Make Fork. Recall Definition 7 (Process Triggered by Process) A connection of a process P2 to a process P1 by a "was triggered by" edge indicates that the start of process P1 was required for P2 to be able to complete. Are there any provisions for multiple possibilities? E.g., Eat Cake does not really depend on a particular instance of Make Fork, just about any Make Fork would do. Could this formalism handle something like recognizing that a codex was written over at some time between 1237 and 1342 without knowing by whom and exactly when? Could it be extended to handle such cases? Could it be extended to handle such cases? |
| Question asked by | Joshua Taylor + |
| Question for the Presentation | James Michaelis Provenance Model + |
