- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:48:38 +0100
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Hi Satya, What you are describing here is various activities (which we represent as process execution expressions). The notion of event introduced in the document is different. It should be understood as "a transition that changes the state of the system". Start of a PE and end of a PE are examples of such transitions/events. You come to this discussion with a different meaning of event, and try to shoe horn it into the notion of event in the model. It does not work. The examples of what you describe as events should be mapped to PEs. We do not have a containment relationship for PEs. Whether we want one is open to debate. Luc On 10/11/2011 11:39 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > We briefly discussed the issue of ordering of events during the > PROV-O/M call yesterday and the example we discussed may be relevant - > an event "issuance of a traffic ticket to X" can be viewed as > instantaneous (total of traffic tickets issued per year in City A) or > stated to have a duration (10mins). Further, the event may contain > events as "ran the stop sign", "handed over license", "signed the > ticket" etc. > > We should be able to model all the above set of events in PROV. -- 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 Wednesday, 12 October 2011 07:49:20 UTC