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, 7 Jun 2011 22:18:15 +0000
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c02262123ed9ab26e239d1c9013488dbn56NIi08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F6357AAB-7B54-40C6-BDB7-A79688899321@ecs.soton.ac.uk>


On 7 Jun 2011, at 22:47, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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"?

Yes and also process specification, if we find necessary to do so
> 
> 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 22:19:13 GMT

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