W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-184: Section 2.1.2 (PROV-DM version as on Nov 28th) [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|48cba818c9a5b4543db80f828892a992o04CkH08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F059B96.205@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Satya, issue now closed.

What do you mean about "still not decided about event"?   No 
proposal/counter-proposal has gained
support. Where possible, we've added 'instantaneous' to avoid potential 
confusion.

Luc

On 01/05/2012 12:28 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> Thanks for addressing the generation and usage issues. I am 
> comfortable with the updated definitions and closing the issue.
>
> I believe we have still not decided about event?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Satya and Jim,
>
>     I believe the proposals
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-12-15#resolution_2
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-12-15#resolution_3
>     address this issue, and changes have now been implemented. See:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0216.html
>
>     We didn't reach consensus to replace the word 'event' by another term.
>     I have added links from occurrences of this word to its
>     definition, and
>     also have added the adjective 'instananeous' where I felt
>     clarification was
>     needs.
>
>     I propose to close this issue, pending review.
>
>     Best regards,
>     Luc
>
>
>     On 12/07/2011 01:43 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>         PROV-ISSUE-184: Section 2.1.2 (PROV-DM version as on Nov 28th)
>         [prov-dm]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/184
>
>         Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>         On product: prov-dm
>
>         Hi,
>         The following are my comments regarding Section 2.1.2 of the
>         PROV-DM document as on Nov 28, 2011.
>
>         Section 2.1.2:
>         1. "Hence, in our conceptualization of the world, an
>         instantaneous event, or event for short, happens in the world
>         and marks a change in the world, in its activities and in its
>         entities."
>
>         Comment: According to this definition, an activity is also an
>         event, since "it happens in the world and marks a change in
>         the world".
>         Section 5.3.1.1 states "A generation event may be, for
>         example, the creation of a file by a program, the creation of
>         a linked data set, the production of a new version of a
>         document, and the sending of a value on a communication
>         channel." So, generation event is being used as a synonym of
>         an activity?
>
>         In addition, Section 2.1.1 describes a world as "real or not"
>         and includes "digital, conceptual etc." - an event in many
>         scenario will not mark a change in "that" world. For example,
>         person looks at the clock and continues in previous state - it
>         is an event but what changed in the world?
>
>         2. "events represent communications or interactions; they are
>         assumed to be atomic and instantaneous."
>
>         Comment: This is contradictory to what is stated in Section
>         5.3.1.2, "A usage event may be the consumption of a parameter
>         by a procedure, the reading of a value on a port by a service,
>         the reading of a configuration file by a program, or the
>         adding of an ingredient, such as eggs, in a baking activity."
>         The reading of a configuration file by program is not
>         instantaneous? Adding of eggs in baking activity is not
>         instantaneous? As I have commented on the previous version of
>         DM, this is an artificial requirement for events to be
>         instantaneous.
>
>         In addition, why is it required that events are atomic? Adding
>         ingredient in a baking activity is never atomic - egg shells
>         are broken, egg is stirred, egg mix is slowly added to the
>         cake batter, while the batter is mixed continuously etc.
>         Similarly, for events such as reading of file - access is
>         checked, read lock is acquired, i-node is updated, reader
>         process reads content of file etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 12:49:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC