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: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:04:38 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTik5kjdtSFub-x_9_2rNKFCG2m1ddA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim,
> That simply means you'll never have to describe both branches of a coin
flip - after it has
> happened (past tense), only one branch occurred.
>If you want to talk about the two potential outcomes, I think we'd need to
add to the >language and it wouldn't be provenance anymore (workflow
instead).

Does your scenario allow a provenance assertion that "at time t a coin was
flipped (with two potential outcomes of heads or tails)" and "at time t+1
heads was the outcome of the coin flip"?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:

> To clarify my "provenance is past tense" entry on the irc today - to me
> the important thing is that provenance is an account in the past tense
> of what has occurred, not what might occur. That simply means you'll
> never have to describe both branches of a coin flip - after it has
> happened (past tense), only one branch occurred. If you want to write
> down in PIL that in the future a coin flip will have resulted in
> 'heads', I don't think it's an issue. If you want to talk about the two
> potential outcomes, I think we'd need to add to the language and it
> wouldn't be provenance anymore (workflow instead).
>
>  Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:34 AM
> > To: Paul Groth
> > Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in
> the past
> >
> > 0 - I'm happy to proceed with this as a working assumption, but remain
> > unconvinced that it needs to be locked in to the overall model.
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > Paul Groth 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 17:05:10 GMT

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