- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:49:59 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTik9SGxWALdD1+Wh-Fffndz1QOgxmg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Graham, all. If we associate the time to the process execution, it does not necessary mean that the process execution generated the resource at a specific time. In fact, the process execution could continue once the resource has been generated... However, I agree with you that we should focus first in the main concepts like "resource" and "process", because if a process execution is supposed to end when the artifact is generated, maybe it would be better to associate the time to it. Daniel 2011/6/1 Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> > Daniel, > > I was assuming that such properties (like time of generation) would be > associated with some level of process or process execution, but maybe I > misunderstand the intent. I think it's sometimes hard trying to define > things in isolation - and maybe we see things fitting together in different > ways. > > When I looked at both OPM and PML, I thought there was a core of ideas > common to both that included "resources", "processes", "provenance" and some > fundamental ways in which they are related. I think it's this core of > inescapable notions and their relationships that's maybe more interesting > than their individual definitions. > > #g > -- > > > Daniel Garijo wrote: > >> Hi Jun, all. >> I think that it refers to the /generation provenance /that you talk about >> in >> the last lines of your definition. Having "generation" as a concept would >> allow to add more metadata about when was a resource/resource >> state/resource state representation >> generated, where, etc. >> >> If we treat the generation as a property, we will have to add more >> properties >> to describe the generation of the resource (like wasGeneratedAtTime, >> wasGeneratedAtPlace, etc). >> Daniel >> >> 2011/5/31 Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org <mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> >> >> >> I agree. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> >> Jun Zhao wrote: >> >> I propose Generation should be a relationship rather than a >> concept. >> >> See >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptGeneration#Definition_by_Jun >> >> cheers, >> >> Jun >> >> On 20/05/2011 08:07, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> >> PROV-ISSUE-8 (define-generation): Definition for Concept >> 'Generation' [Provenance Terminology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/8 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: Provenance Terminology >> >> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept >> 'Generation' as a core concept of the provenance interchange >> language to be standardized (see >> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >> >> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Generation'? >> How do we define the concept 'Generation'? >> Where does concept 'Generation' appear in ProvenanceExample? >> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Generation'? >> >> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptGeneration >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 08:50:27 UTC