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

Re: Renaming of ProcessExecution to Activity

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:21:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkzugscMG2GnjSftscE1pEnD0FNh4W26t03fMRSmUkrvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 14:35, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:
> Likewise. A lot of people who I've talked to don't object to "Activity" as
> much as I do, mostly because of the use of activity to talk about things
> like volcanic activity, glacial activity, and so on. I still think that
> those imply the volcano or glacier are agents in the process, but if I'm the
> only one who's being picky, I'll drop it and not report the issue.

I'm also picky, but not insistingly so. :-)

Perhaps the two of us can accept Activity for now, but have in the
back of our mind to try to think of any good "no agent, not an
activity" examples which would easily be described with PROV. I'm not
sure if the provenance of a glacier is the best fit..  :)

I mainly objected because of the preferred style of using
PEs/activities to model "state transitions" between static entities
which are representing "the same thing in the world". If
:roofWithWater is derived from :dryRoof and :rain - then there was now
an "activity" called Raining which caused the transition - but who
performs the Raining activity? The rain? The weather? The cloud? The

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 15:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC