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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:10:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFA7F72.9090204@ninebynine.org>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Jim, I think your comment usefully focuses on the essential property to be 
captured: the absence of alternative possibilities.  The whole past tense thing 
is, I think the normal way in which the choice among possibilities is seen to be 
resolved, but is not of itself the key feature.  Which I think is why I was 
unconvinced by it.

Can we capture this crisply in the context of a process execution?

e.g.

A process execution represents a specific data processing activity in which in 
which all inputs and outputs are fully determined.

...

My "0" still stands to Luc's original proposal, which should not be taken as an 
objection to proceeding with it.

#g
--


Myers, Jim 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 22:16:26 GMT

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