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 11:24:23 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b6a990be9c9be79eafb9876d76e71134n6QBOS08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E2FE757.7030209@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Activity is what is in the world (like entity) cf. introduction.
A process execution is a pil construct/assertion.

The process execution construct represents an activity in the world.

Luc

On 07/27/2011 09:38 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>
> Hi Luc,
>
> The current definition states that "Generation represents the creation 
> of a new characterized entity by *an activity*. [...]"
>
> What I understood is that activity in the above definition refers to a 
> process execution. That is: "Generation represents the creation of a 
> new characterized entity by *a process execution*. [...]"
>
> I assumed that in the above definition the term "activity" was used 
> instead of "process execution" in order not to use the concepts parts 
> of the vocabulary, in this case "process execution", in the body of 
> the definitions, and to confine ourselves to the use of natural 
> language. Is this the case?
>
> Thanks, khalid
>
> On 27/07/2011 09:25, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 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 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 10:24:55 GMT

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