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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in the past

From: martin <martin@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:45:06 +0300
Message-ID: <4DF757D2.8030403@ics.forth.gr>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 to the proposal "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
 >>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
 >>> a process execution is always in the past."


To my opinion, if we accept Olaf's proposal, we start messing up workflow systems
with provenance. It is very difficult to find objective criteria that a planned event,
completely in the future, is actually identical to one that is in the past. It becomes
even more messy, if we want to identify the Actors for future events etc. In the CIDOC
CRM working group, we could not agree on a coherent definition of future events that can
become real for more than a decade. The future event is a plan, a document. This is consistent
with any view on reality.

We should stay focussed. "Provenance" is a notion of the past.

For a process which has started (in the past), we can assert an outer bound,
(any time before or equal to the start: plus infinity, using P82 in the CIDOC CRM),
and an interval for which it is known to be ongoing (from start to "now", P81 in the (CIDOC CRM).
The proposal on vote is consistent with ISO21127.

Martin


On 6/14/2011 2:50 PM, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2011 13:29:27 Simon Miles wrote:
>> +1 except for the caveat made in the last teleconference, e.g. I might
>> be modelling what I expect the provenance of something to be in 10
>> years time, in which case the execution is in the past of an imagined
>> future, not in the past from now.
>>
>> So I would qualify the definition to something like:
>>    "the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the
>> position of any assertion made about it."
>
> +1 to the proposal with that extension.
>
> Olaf
>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 14 June 2011 11:48, Paul Groth<pgroth@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it would be
>>> good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process execution
>>> being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last
>>> telecon:
>>>
>>> "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
>>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
>>> a process execution is always in the past."
>>>
>>> Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a response
>>> to this email message?
>>>
>>> The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>


-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin@ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                              |
  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
                                                              |
          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:46:14 GMT

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