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: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:23:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=RwGCSVeZtSjLY7X4bOtbGY987C9DGgZSj0UyRCaYRjJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 to proposal 1.
-1 to proposal 2. "Activity" implies an actor, or agent, which, if we
want to describe natural events (like a hurricane) is incorrrect.
"Event" is better, as it has no connotations around agency.

Jim

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
> [2]
> 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
>
>
>



-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 16:24:05 GMT

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