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: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:38:13 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF2052ED70B@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think that works - fully determined inputs and outputs sounds like a
better framing. (Open world though - not all inputs and outputs may be
reported).
Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:11 PM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in
the past
> 
> 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 Friday, 17 June 2011 12:38:57 GMT

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