W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: vocabulary simplification: two proposals to vote on [deadline, Oct 26 midnight, GMT]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:04:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAExK0DcNm6CmA9DkaSmKtcfwzo3yy_t7z5udfUkhhNkcFmhfyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, all.
Are the "events" going to still be present on section 2.1? I don't see very
clear the difference between "activity" and "event":
They are both involved in changing "things", but the event seems like an
instantaneous activity.

As for the votes:

   - +1 to define an entity as an identifiable characterized thing. I think
   it makes everything clear.
   - +0 to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'. I think process
   execution is clear enough, but if the rest consider that it can be
   confusing, then I'm ok with the renaming.


2011/10/22 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> Dear all,
> Graham recently, and Simon previously, suggested that we define an
> entity as an identifiable characterized thing.  Such a definition
> would be appearing in section 2.1 [1].  This would work since PROV-DM
> has a notion of 'Entity Expression' for the provenance record that
> describes an entity.
> Hence, there would be no confusion between an Entity Expression and an
> Entity.
> It would further simplify the writing and presentation of PROV-DM,
> because we could simply talk about entity, rather than 'identifiable
> characterized thing'.
> The prupose of this email is to confirm that we want to adopt this
> terminology.
> PROPOSED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable
> characterized thing.
> Can you confirm your support or not for this proposal?  If not, can
> you explain your reasons?
> Assuming we go ahead with this proposal, section 2.1 would
> define :
> - 'Entity' and
> - 'Activity',
> whereas section 5.2 [2] would define:
> - 'Entity Expression' and
> - 'Process Execution Expression'
> This is not symmetric and this is confusing. This issue
> (PROV-ISSUE-129) was also raised by Yolanda.
> The term 'Process Execution' is dating back from the charter, and was
> never questioned.  It feels that Activity is more intuitive and
> broader than process execution.
> In the spirit of simplification [3] of the presentation and model,
> I am suggesting, the following.
> PROPOSED: to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'
> Again, can you express your support or not for this proposal. If you
> don't support it, can you make a counter-proposal. It feels that
> keeping both 'Activity' and 'Process Execution Expression' is not
> suitable: so the status quo is not an option, really.
> Cheers,
> Luc
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/model/**
> ProvenanceModel.html#**conceptualization<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#conceptualization>
> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/default/model/**
> ProvenanceModel.html#**expression-element<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-element>
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/**
> 0140.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0140.html>
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 19:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT