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

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

From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4DF0E589.70808@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 for 1.

I support 2.

And I strongly support 3.

-- Jun

On 07/06/11 23:18, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
> 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 Thursday, 9 June 2011 15:24:31 GMT

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