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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:22:22 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|977a266d8c5ac3e8a364f40851099ad1n56MMY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DEE968E.40703@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya,

The following quote is taken from the charter:

 > Recipe link: we will not define what the recipe is, what we mean here 
is just a standard way to refer to a recipe (a pointer).
 > The development of standard ways to describe these recipes is out of 
scope.

It's in that sense that I said that process specification (which I 
regard as the same as recipe in the charter) is out of scope.

Why out of scope? simply because there already many process 
specification languages, in many communities, some of
which are already standard (process algebrae, workflow languages, 
business process languages, etc).

What do you think?
Cheers,
Luc


On 07/06/11 17:49, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 21:23:13 GMT

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