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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:05:13 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e3f980df9fc7c7908111683e6abacc9an5DE5H08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DF75C89.7050105@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jun and James,

So far we have not agreed on a single definition, but on some 
properties, which will be helpful
when defining concepts.

I hope we are getting close to a consensus on some concepts.

It seems perfectly appropriate to use MUST and SHOULD.

This said, I would be keen, if we could also come up with "short 
intuitive" definitions for the primer (they
may not tell us everything, but it would be useful for the general public!)

Cheers,
Luc


On 06/14/2011 01:45 PM, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
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
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:05:41 GMT

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