Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]

Hi Simon,

While I mentioned, endurant/perdurant, I was using them for intuition,
and didn't mean to formally introduce them in the definition.
You may be right, a BOB with temperature changing constantly, may not fit
the endurant/perdurant distinction. But I am not expert in this ontology.

But, I don't see why this makes a case for PE=BOB. What use case do you
try to resolve by merging the two concepts?  Its major downside is
the unknown meaning of using/generating a process execution.  It seems 
also to
mix use/generation/start/end.

I see a process execution as a set of events using/generating BOBs,
and temporally delimited by a start and end event.  This set of event is
said  by an asserter to be an identifiable activity.
This activity has an "effect" on the world, by all the BOBs it generates.

So can you identify an example that we can't model with  PE<>BOB
but can with PE=BOB?

Luc

On 08/01/2011 11:09 AM, Simon Miles wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> OK, I believe I understand your intuition, but would argue:
>
> 1. A process execution currently fits the definition of a BOB, as it
> has assertable characteristics, is identifiable, and is an entity,
> i.e. bounded.
>
> 2. I was not clear we wanted to restrict BOBs to endurants. For
> example, at the F2F1, Tim raised the case of expressing that something
> changed temperature by 10 degrees (and why), without asserting what
> the start and end temperatures were. If I remember correctly, you and
> I argued that the temperature change could be seen as an (invariant)
> attribute of a BOB, because BOBs are not necessarily instantaneous.
> And if I understand endurants and perdurants correctly, I think the
> change is a perdurant because at any moment, the change itself is not
> apparent.
>
> Intuitively, it seems reasonable that a process execution is something
> you can ask the provenance of ("why did this execution occur as it
> did?"). This might or might not be fully answered by saying what the
> execution used, who it was controlled by, when it started, and what
> recipe it followed.
>
> I recognise that it makes things complicated, in that a process
> execution (as a BOB) could be "generated" or "used" by another
> execution, but perhaps this is what we mean by the "ordering of
> processes" concept anyway. The existing definition "Generation
> represents the creation of a new characterized entity by an activity.
> This characterized entity did not exist before creation." seems to fit
> the notion of one process starting another one quite nicely.
>
> To be more constructive, here's my counter-proposal.
>
> * We add "characterized entity" to the process execution definition,
> e.g. "A process execution represents an activity which performs a
> piece of work. An activity is a kind of identifiable characterized
> entity."
>
> No other change seems necessary, though some explanation of the
> consequences may be needed. We might then have also covered "ordering
> of processes", at least in a causal sense (temporal ordering is
> different).
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
> On 1 August 2011 09:14, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> To me, process executions are the "verbs", whereas BOBs are the "nouns",
>> and therefore
>> belong to different categories.
>>
>> Several people have also mentioned they relate to perdurant/endurant in
>> formal ontologies.
>>
>> Being identifiable is therefore not the key characteristic!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> PS. In a separate thread, you mentioned that IVPof could be used for
>> process executions.
>>     This may make sense, but in that case we simply need to change the
>> signature of IVP of:
>>          BOB x BOB   U   PE x PE
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/29/2011 05:22 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>      
>>> PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/66
>>>
>>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>
>>> This was mentioned by Satya in the call, but I can't see it having been raised as an issue yet.
>>>
>>> As process executions are identified and may have attributes, including start and end time, are they kinds of characterised entities, similarly to agent? If not, why not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Monday, 1 August 2011 10:50:27 UTC