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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4EA80801.70509@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I was one of the -1 for "activity", but I don't feel very strongly beyond what I 
said in my message.  My vote shouldn't be taken as a blocker.

#g
--

On 26/10/2011 12:33, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I appreciate that some members are still casting their vote, but I wanted to
> comment
> on two recent negative votes.
>
> Currently, the prov-dm document defines:
>
> Conceptualization: characterized thing and activity
> Data Model: entity expression and process execution expression
>
> I think it was acceptable to have different terms for conceptualization and data
> model,
> but it made the writing convoluted at times.
>
> With two votes against the second proposal, we may end up with:
>
> Conceptualization: entity and activity
> Data Model: entity expression and process execution expression
>
> I really find this non logical: entity expression is record about an entity, while
> process execution execution is a record about an activity. Why this difference?
>
> JimMcC indicated that activity implied a notion of agency. I am not familiar
> with this
> interpretation. Where does it come from? He suggests 'event', but this term is
> already in
> the document (and will be the subject of a future clarification proposal).
>
> Graham mentions a distinction between activity and process execution which I
> don't think belongs to the document.
> (I also note that process execution is not defined, but process execution
> expression is).
>
> An alternative proposal is to drop the word 'activity' in the conceptualisation,
> and just use process execution.
> I find the later unintuitive, and difficult to explain. Can you reconsider the
> negative votes?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2011 06:29 PM, 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
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 13:16:36 GMT

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