- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:28:00 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon, all, Issue 67 has led to lots of discussions and changes to the document. Is the new document addressing your concerns. Can we close the issue? Or do you wish to raise new, more specific issues, in light of the latest version? Thanks, Luc On 07/29/2011 05:52 PM, 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. > > > > > -- 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, 22 August 2011 08:28:31 UTC