Add metadata to the flowrep dictionary?

[samwaseda]

For quite some time I'm wondering how to pass metadata to the knowledge graph. In particular I would need the following information:

• Representation format (flowrep, semantikon, PWD etc.)
• User information (name, email address)
• Server data
• Date (start - end)

Should we create a new field? metadata?

[liamhuber]

This was somewhat on my radar already because we need somewhere to dump what version of flowrep is used for the recipe. However, as with that, all of these seem like once-per-file things and not once-per-node things, so I'm not sure whether such a field belongs in the recipe, or something we rather store beside the recipe when we dump it to a file or send it off for KG digestion. If you think we can do it beside, that's my current preference.

[samwaseda]

all of these seem like once-per-file things and not once-per-node things

Well, except for the representation format, there's a possibility that they differ for different nodes (as a matter of fact, date definitely does). So I guess there should be a field on the node level

[liamhuber]

Date is only for the retrospective data though, yeah? So we can at least kick that can.

I hadn't thought of mixing representations inside a single recipe object. I guess we could. It is another thing that I'm not sure we should.

[samwaseda]

No representations shouldn't be mixed (I guessed you missed this part in my comment?) but it's true that the rest is mostly about retrospective, but shouldn't the retrospective representation be the prospective representation + data?

[liamhuber]

but shouldn't the retrospective representation be the prospective representation + data

Agreed, that would be my first line of a attack. It's not necessarily the case though. For instance, the retrospective isn't going to need the same non-DAG elements. And indeed, as Niklas mentioned in this weeks meeting, figuring out how to express "this retrospective DAG was produced by this prospective dynamic node" might be an ontological headache, so it's always possible the pro- and retrospective formats don't wind up being trivially related by a data extension.