- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:04:36 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Paolo Ncl <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > ... does imply activity? you mean agency? Yes, sorry. > Well, so it's simple, we can quote definition 1 which does not. Not as simple a that. Sense 1 is a mass noun, which applied across a composition of actors (an economy is made up of "rational" agents). It's an imprecise term to hang on to, especially when in most cases we're talking about sense 2, but without the guarantee of agency, known or not. Of the terms discussed, I would prefer "Process" with the caveat that it needs to be strongly defined as the occurrent, not a continuent that specifies occurrents. I'm not clear on why "activity" was settled on as the simplest term. The root "act" is far less ambiguous, even though it too suffers from implied agency. Shouldn't we be opening this up to other suggestions? For instance, we can simplify the model by making Events either instantaneous or not (which aligns with the common definition of Event), and let Events be composites. Temporal events can be aligned with time.owl, but the temporal aspect shouldn't be required (as it's not required now). Jim -- 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 Thursday, 27 October 2011 01:05:37 UTC