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 13:21:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TZNdWrSsy+hi6t_03LwLgSyq3epCXWCYGKUBRrRbtg3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Good points, and that's partly why I've softened on "activity". However, I
still think we have a perfectly good word, "Event" that's being used as
part of the model that doesn't actually inhere in any concrete
representation. The DM uses "Event" in as much as it maps it to
"Instantaneous Event", neither of which are represented in the formal
model. I would much rather see another term for "instantaneous event", as
events are things that occur, and if they occur in the world, they always
have a start point and an end point. The definition of event that is
currently implied by the DM isn't one that is shared by the world at large.
It is the simplest, highest-level term that unambiguously describes an
occurrent in our model.

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 18:22:02 UTC

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