Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model]

Hi Satya,

Thanks for the feedback. Here is some responses. Some text polishing is 
Other points, such as events, may deserve their own issue on the tracker.


On 08/07/2011 12:48 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing)  [Conceptual Model]
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: Conceptual Model
> Hi,
> I am reviewing the current draft of the conceptual model as part of our work on the formal model and will be posting comments/suggested changes in a section-wise manner:
> Section 3.2:
> _____________
> 1. What is the difference between e0 and e1? Since we have "Event evt1: Alice creates (pe0) an empty file in /share/crime.txt. We denote this e1.", clearly the file "share/crime.txt" did not exist prior to the time that event evt1 started/happened?

e0 and e1 are two different characterizations of the file.
e0 characterizes the file by its location only.
e1 in addition characterizes its content.

> 2. "The entities, as characterized, hold during intervals delimited by events." - What does "hold" mean? Existence?

Really, we mean that the attributes have those values during intervals. 
We need a better word than "hold".

> 3. In "The following table lists all entities and their corresponding validity intervals" does "validity interval" means their existence or something else?

It's the same interval as in previous point. Again, better term requried.

> 4. The duration of existence ("validity interval"") of entities should be time interval and not "event intervals".

No we disagree here. It is on purpose that we refer to events. We can 
order events. It's difficult to order time, because
of asserter/observer clocks.

> 5. Why is the validity/existence of e4 limited to event evt5 (this should be a time value and not event as discussed in point (4))- we do not have any information that it stopped being e4 after evt5 ("Event evt5: Edith emails (pe4) the contents of /share/crime.txt as an attachment, referred to as e5.")

OK, simply (as we say in text) evt5 is considered as the most recent 
event, i.e. the end of time, in the context of this example.
If time continued, ... yes we could refer to a more recent event.

> 6. What does "t" mean in "processExecution(pe0,create-file,t)" - duration of process, start of process, or end of process? Why are we associating time value with some PE and not with others, "processExecution(pe5,spellcheck)" since time is not mentioned in Section 3.1 "File Scenario"?

Correct, the abbreviation is not declared, it's intended to represent 
start time.
The purpose is to show that time is optional, but we should have written 
it in the text.

> 7. "isGeneratedBy(e0,pe0,outFile)" and "isGeneratedBy(e1,pe0,outContent)" is not consistent with "Alice creates (pe0) an empty file in /share/crime.txt. We denote this e1." from Section 3.1. There is no connection between pe0 and e0 asserted? In addition, since pe0 led to creation of "empty file", what does "isGeneratedBy(e1,pe0,outContent)" mean?
It's an interesting one for discussion.
e1 is complement of e0. Why can't they be both generated by the same pe0?

> 8. Does "isGeneratedBy(e4,pe2,attachment)" mean that we are considering "emails" (pe2) to include the process of "attaching a file to a mail", which in turn includes the processes "copying file e2", "uploading to email server, thereby creating the file e4 in the email server"?

We are unspecific about e4. It could be a file the email server, or it 
could be the bits on the wire, when a message is sendt

> 9. "To distinguish the various entities generated by a given process execution, a role (construct described in Section Role) is introduced." - since we already have different identifier for the entities e1, e2, etc. we are not using role to differentiate between entities. The different "roles" maybe more relevant to identify specific types of processes, for example "fileCreation", "addingContent", "attachingFile" etc.?

OK, poor choice of word.

> 10. Similarly, for "Uses" property, we are not using "roles" to distinguish the various entities. The given role examples "in and fileIn" may help us differentiate between the PEs - one may be "addingContent" (pe3) and "spellchecking" (pe5) processes - but I think roles are redundant here since we are already using different identifiers for these two PEs.

The same entity could be used by the same process execution multiple 
times. That's when we need roles to distinguish the various uses.

> 11. In "Control", we say "the nature of this influence is described by a role (construct described in Section Role).", but the example roles are describing the entities "Alice - creator", "Bob - author", "Charles - communicator". Further, these roles can be used to characterize the types of processes "fileCreation" etc. as described in points (9) and (10). Examples of roles for "Control" (maybe represented as sub properties) are "starts", "stops", "pauses" etc.

Roles in this case are not used to their full potential, since other 
agents could also control these processes.

As indicated in the document in the role section, the meaning of roles 
is process execution specific.

I am not sure about these starts/stops/pauses. They refer to another 
email discussion. I don't think we can model that. Or if we want, we need
to revisit the model seriously.

> 12. Does an event have a time duration or does it happen in a time instant? How is event related to PE or other concepts? Is there a need to have a provenance concept called "event" - alternatively we can describe the File Scenario in Section 3.1 using time values?
Event are meant to occur at a time instant. Not sure we say it.
I would like a provenance concept 'event' to be introduced. This would 
facilitate life in explaining things.
Should we raise this as an explicit issue?

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 16:05:38 UTC