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

Hi Simon,
This issue was closed, pending review.
Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we
close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it,
or create a more specific issue.
Thanks,
Luc

PS See note on this issue's page



On 29/07/11 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.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:14:00 UTC