W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:25:34 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2dd155001c96dfac26a7ea0aae8d6990n6Q9Pb08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E2FCB7E.7010307@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Khalid,
I don't understand your comment.  The text states:

A process execution represents an identifiable activity, which performs 
a piece of work.

Process execution is a pil language construct.

It would make no sense to write

"Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable characterized 
entity by a *process execution*."

A characterized entity is not created by a language construct!  It is 
created by the activity that the language construct represents.

Luc

On 07/27/2011 09:19 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>
> Hi Luc,
>
> As Satya, I understood that identifiable activity in the the 
> definition refers to process execution. I didn't raise an issue 
> because I thought there was an effort in the definitions to avoid 
> using the vocabulary that we are defining and use only natural 
> language. Is that the case?
>
> khalid
>
>
> On 27/07/2011 08:29, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Satya,
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>   pil:generation, pil:BOB and pil:processExecution are constructs of 
>> the provenance language
>>
>> activity and entity should be understood with their natural language 
>> meaning.
>>
>> Hence, a process execution is not the same as an activity, but is a 
>> representation of an activity.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 07/27/2011 02:04 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Reading Paul/Luc's definition for isGeneratedBy:
>>> "Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable 
>>> characterized entity by an identifiable activity."
>>>
>>> can we interpret that "identifiable activity" is same as "process 
>>> execution"? If yes, then we should use "process execution" directly 
>>> instead of using its definition (description?).
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Satya
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Paolo Missier 
>>> <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     can we just state upfront that assertions can only be made about
>>>
>>>     - C-entities that are identifiable
>>>     - activities that are identifiable
>>>
>>>     -Paolo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 7/25/11 8:45 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>         I suppose that if we follow this argument thoroughly, we
>>>         should write:
>>>
>>>         "Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable
>>>         characterized entity by an identifiable activity."
>>>
>>>         (We also have to do the same with Use ...)
>>>
>>>         Definitions are becoming quite heavy ... thoughts?
>>>
>>>         Luc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>      
>

-- 
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 Wednesday, 27 July 2011 08:26:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT