- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:50:56 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc, OK, sorry I didn't see that, as I was expecting to see the addition to the Entity definition rather than the Execution definition (I was expecting us to say why an activity should not be modelled as an Entity, rather than why a Process Execution should not also be considered an Entity). I agree that the text addresses the original issue. I suggest that we could consider also adding something brief to the Entity definition section to avoid people people considering Entity when modelling activities (as illustrated by the use case in my previous mail), such as "Activities are not represented by entities, but instead by process executions, as explained below." Thanks, Simon On 26 August 2011 00:29, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Did you see this text we added in section [1] > > A process execution is not an entity. Indeed, an entity represents a > thing that exists in full at any point in its characterization interval, > persists during this interval, and preserves the characteristics that > makes it identifiable. Alternatively, an activity in something that > happens, unfolds or develops through time, but is typically not > identifiable by the characteristics it exhibits at any point during its > duration. > > Doesn't it address your concern? > Luc > > [1] > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-ProcessExecution > > > On 25/08/11 15:37, Simon Miles wrote: >> Hi Luc, >> >> I think something still needs to be fixed, but maybe it's in the best >> practices rather than the conceptual model document, so I'm not sure >> whether to re-open the issue. >> >> To clarify and answer a point you put before your break (sorry I >> didn't get a chance to reply earlier): >> >> >>> Why not simply: BOB owl:isDisjointWith ProcessExecution? >>> >> That would not solve the original issue, as it would only make the >> formal model consistent with the intent of the conceptual model, but >> inconsistent with what it actually says. >> >> To illustrate: Alice is trying to work out how to apply the model to >> her application, which is the File Scenario described in the document. >> She first says, how should I model file e1? The definition of Entity >> in the model fits - it is identifiable and it has some >> characteristics. Therefore, I should model it as an Entity. Next she >> says, how should I model the UNIX cat process by which I appended text >> to e1? Well it is also identifiable and has characteristics, therefore >> it must be an Entity too. >> >> Thanks, >> Simon >> >> On 22 August 2011 22:12, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hi Simon, >>> This issue was closed, pending review. >>> Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we >>> close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it, >>> or create a more specific issue. >>> Thanks, >>> Luc >>> >>> PS See note on this issue's page >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/11 17:22, 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 11:51:24 UTC