W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:16:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4E36DF57.3030208@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

On 01/08/2011 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Khalid,
> It's the other way round.
>
> isDerivedFrom indicates only one process execution was involved.
>
I was making the assumption that isDerivedFrom is transitive.

Khalid

> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps indicates that we don't know how many 
> were involved.
>
> Luc
>
>
>
> On 07/30/2011 09:04 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with you Simon. Probably, the only piece of information that 
>> one would get from differentiating between the two, is that:
>> 1- isDerivedFrom(e1,e0): we don't know how many process executions 
>> have been enacted to generate e1 from e0.
>> 2- isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0): we know that multiple process 
>> executions that were enacted to generate e1 from e0. (Although the 
>> text need to be changed to reflect this as explained below)
>>
>> If the objective from differentiating between the two is as explained 
>> above, then I would suggest to change the text in Section 5.5.2 as 
>> follows:
>>
>> "... this specification introduces a further assertion 
>> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *one* or 
>> more process executions."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "... this specification introduces a further assertion 
>> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *two* or 
>> more process executions."
>>
>>
>> Thanks, khalid
>>
>>
>> On 29/07/2011 17:52, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what 
>>> is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/67
>>>
>>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>
>>> By the definition, "a process execution represents an identifiable 
>>> activity". This does not seem to preclude one process execution 
>>> assertion denoting, at a coarse granularity, the same events in the 
>>> world denoted by multiple process executions in other assertions.
>>>
>>> If so, then in the File Scenario example, I could add a 
>>> coarse-grained process execution representing the whole e1-to-e5 
>>> activity:
>>>    processExecution(pe5,collaboratively-edit,t)
>>>    uses(pe5,e1,in)
>>>    isGeneratedBy(e5,pe5,out)
>>>
>>> But then Section 5.5.2 distinguishes between "a single process 
>>> execution" and "one or more process executions". Following the 
>>> argument above, these could represent exactly the same occurrences 
>>> in the world.
>>>
>>> So there is no difference between what is denoted by one and 
>>> multiple process executions, and so no difference between 
>>> isDerivedFrom and isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps as described. Whether 
>>> e5 was derived from e1 appears to me to be entirely independent of 
>>> how many process executions were involved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 17:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:50:59 UTC