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: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:00:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4DF75B5D.9090605@gmail.com>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jun,

In general, I think we were trying to get agreement rather than agreement.

I would like to see the group get a general agreement on the space of 
terminology and definitions. Then we can focus down.

Thanks
Paul

Jun Zhao wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> [...]
>
>> But maybe I'm being overly pedantic.
>
> I think bringing in MUST and SHOULD makes the definitions much more
> rigorous. Your definition has nicely implied a set of validation rules
> for provenance logs:)
>
> But I am not sure whether this level of rigor should happen when we
> implement the model using semantics or now, when defining the concepts.
>
> A question to the chairs and others:
>
> How rigorous do we want to in concept definitions?
>
> cheers,
>
> Jun
>
>>
>> --James
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 12:29 PM, 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."
>>>
>>> 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 Simon Miles
>>> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
>>> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
>>> +44 (0)20 7848 1166
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:01:20 GMT

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