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

Re: Renaming of ProcessExecution to Activity

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:41:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Rcy+0p7OPGYsaDh26XWCqZqUTXgdWMNfY+MMRgvbFpQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
> roof?

That should be describable using PROV.

One example that is useful to think about is a genetic disorder like
Huntington's Disease. HD is a mutation in the gene that codes for
huntingtin, and is deterministic: it will show up when it's going to, and
won't really be affected by environment or behavior. We should be able to
say things like:


No where in this event is an agent. Calling it an activity is very awkward
because of this, IMO.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 16:42:29 UTC

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