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

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

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:44:36 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=xAf+_mxnc-kqfY+TcuFdtVyZETQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc,

I would strongly support 1.

I support 2 on the understanding that by defining "recipe link" we
would be defining "recipe" in the minimal way we need anyway, i.e. its
role in provenance but not its nature or form.

I'm not sure what you mean by 3. Terminology for what? Do you just
mean better terms for "recipe link" and "process execution"?

Thanks,
Simon

On 7 June 2011 22:26, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 21:45:05 GMT

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