Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]

Hi Khalid,
It's the other way round.

isDerivedFrom indicates only one process execution was involved.

isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps indicates that we don't know how many were 
involved.

Luc



On 07/30/2011 09:04 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>
>
> I agree with you Simon. Probably, the only piece of information that 
> one would get from differentiating between the two, is that:
> 1- isDerivedFrom(e1,e0): we don't know how many process executions 
> have been enacted to generate e1 from e0.
> 2- isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0): we know that multiple process 
> executions that were enacted to generate e1 from e0. (Although the 
> text need to be changed to reflect this as explained below)
>
> If the objective from differentiating between the two is as explained 
> above, then I would suggest to change the text in Section 5.5.2 as 
> follows:
>
> "... this specification introduces a further assertion 
> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *one* or 
> more process executions."
>
> to
>
> "... this specification introduces a further assertion 
> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *two* or 
> more process executions."
>
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
>
> On 29/07/2011 17:52, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what 
>> is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/67
>>
>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>> By the definition, "a process execution represents an identifiable 
>> activity". This does not seem to preclude one process execution 
>> assertion denoting, at a coarse granularity, the same events in the 
>> world denoted by multiple process executions in other assertions.
>>
>> If so, then in the File Scenario example, I could add a 
>> coarse-grained process execution representing the whole e1-to-e5 
>> activity:
>>    processExecution(pe5,collaboratively-edit,t)
>>    uses(pe5,e1,in)
>>    isGeneratedBy(e5,pe5,out)
>>
>> But then Section 5.5.2 distinguishes between "a single process 
>> execution" and "one or more process executions". Following the 
>> argument above, these could represent exactly the same occurrences in 
>> the world.
>>
>> So there is no difference between what is denoted by one and multiple 
>> process executions, and so no difference between isDerivedFrom and 
>> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps as described. Whether e5 was derived 
>> from e1 appears to me to be entirely independent of how many process 
>> executions were involved.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 1 August 2011 08:26:42 UTC