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: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:55:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA7BCE8.1040808@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 -- as discussed separately with Luc

-Paolo

On 10/26/11 2:53 AM, Yolanda Gil wrote:
> +1 on both.  I like the term "activity".
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Luc Moreau 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
>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 07:55:49 GMT

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