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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: towards a first proposal

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:49:46 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=y=AQt=MYywG_N1q02Lvs3oSzwtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,
> process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter
and is out of scope for this WG
Since, we have a proposed concept for "recipe link" -  (
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptRecipeLink), which refers to some
process specification/recipe I am not sure whether process specification
should be out of scope.

In our journalism example, if we consider the process (pubProc) by which
government (gov) publishes its data (d) as web resource (r) - it is clearly
a process specification/protocol.

The publication of data (d1) as web resource (r1) is an instance/execution
of the publication process (pubProc1).

If due to error in publishing the web resource (r1), the publication process
is changed (to say pubProc_updated) then we need to be able to describe this
as part the provenance also.

In the biomedical/bench science, the experiment protocol is an important
concept and is often part of the provenance of experiment results.

Summary: we should have a concept called "*process"* that can be specialized
further to describe process specification or process execution as required.
Process is well understood in many knowledge representation/conceptual
modeling, so we can simply re-use their existing definition [1].

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution#Definition_by_Satya

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Given that we have a busy agenda on Thursday, we may not have time to
> discuss issues related to the model.
>
> There is some commonality in the definitions of Process Execution [1].
>
> Hence, before putting the following proposal to a formal vote, I would like
> to get a feel as to whether the proposal would get support, or whether
> it needs to be amended.
>
> PROPOSED:
>  1. there is a distinction between process execution and process
> specification/definition
>  2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the
> charter and is out of scope for this WG
>  3. terminology needs to be agreed on
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution
>
> Regards,
> 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 Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 16:50:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT