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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 20:20:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6w6Fx-dTVw2VCDA9FOCX4ngN6TLHAouRUPzFTjyy+Oe5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc,
Sorry about the really delayed reply. My responses are interleaved:


>
> > Hi, My review comments for Section 5.2.2 Process Execution in the
> > current version of the conceptual model document:
> >
> > Similar to issue with Entity, why are defining Process Execution
> > expression?
>
> We now define records. Terminology 'record' has been (hopefully
> consistently) used across the whole document.
>
>
As I have stated in the issues raised against the current version of the DM
- I do not agree with the approach of on one hand distinguishing the
activity record as representation from activity, while on the other hand
using the same identifier for both, which in any information system
translates to both of them being identical.


>
> >
> > 1. The activity that a process execution expression is a
> > representation of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end
> > events; hence, it occurs over an interval delimited by two
> > events. However, a process execution expression need not mention time
> > information, nor duration, because they may not be known.
> >
> > Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time
> > information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without
> > having knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration
> > (delimited by events)?
>
> Yes, in fact, we don't assert the start/end events.
>
>
Ok - but the current version of the DM Section 2.1.2.1 states:
"Four kinds of events underpin the PROV-DM data model. The *activity start*and
*activity end* events demarcate the beginning and the end of activities,
respectively. The *entity generation* and *entity usage* events demarcate
the characterization interval for entities."

Are activity state and end event not types of start/end events?


>
> >
> > 2. Further characteristics of the activity in the world can be
> > represented by other attribute-value pairs, which must also remain
> > unchanged during the activity duration.
> >
> > Issue: If we have an attribute value for pe1: status = executing at t1
> > and status = stopped at t2, would it violate the above constraint? If
> > yes, we need to rethink the above constraint.
>
> Simply, this should not be seen as attribute, since this is its status
> at given instants.  It does not hold for the PE's whole duration.
>
>
I am not I understand the reason why status cannot be an attribute? The
current version of the DM (as previous versions of DM) does not specify
which information resources are attributes and which are not?

Further, status is one example of an attribute that can change, we can have
a number of similar attributes of an activity. For example, rate of an
chemical reaction experiment, where chemical reaction experiment is an
activity, changes over its duration.


>
> >
> > 3. contains a set of attribute-value pairs [ attr1=val1, ...],
> > representing other attributes of this activity that hold for its all
> > duration.
> >
> > Issue: Not sure what the above statement means by "for all its
> > durations" (typo) - are we referring to characterizing attributes (for
> > the PE) or any attribute of the PE?
>
> Changed to: For its WHOLE duration
>
>
> Ok.


> >
> > 4. A process execution expression is not an entity expression. Indeed,
> > an entity expression 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.
> >
> > Issue: This is a re-phrasing of the "continuant" and "occurrent"
> > definition from the Basic Formal Ontology [1] (proposed by me in email
> > thread on PROV-ISSUE-66 [2]). I think we should cite BFO with this.
>
> Yes, this is a concept from philosophy, W. E. Johnson, Logic: Part III
> (1924)
> Extra citation added, referrring to the book.
>
>
>
Ok.


> >
> > [1]BFO: www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1
> > [2]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-prov-**
> wg/2011Aug/0038.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html>
> >
>
>
Thanks.

Best,
Satya



>
> On 09/26/2011 10:13 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution
>> (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/101<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/101>
>>
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>> Hi,
>> My review comments for Section 5.2.2 Process Execution in the current
>> version of the conceptual model document:
>>
>> Similar to issue with Entity, why are defining Process Execution
>> expression?
>>
>> 1. The activity that a process execution expression is a representation
>> of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end events; hence, it
>> occurs over an interval delimited by two events. However, a process
>> execution expression need not mention time information, nor duration,
>> because they may not be known.
>>
>> Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time
>> information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without having
>> knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration (delimited
>> by events)?
>>
>> 2. Further characteristics of the activity in the world can be
>> represented by other attribute-value pairs, which must also remain
>> unchanged during the activity duration.
>>
>> Issue: If we have an attribute value for pe1: status = executing at t1
>> and status = stopped at t2, would it violate the above constraint? If yes,
>> we need to rethink the above constraint.
>>
>> 3. contains a set of attribute-value pairs [ attr1=val1, ...],
>> representing other attributes of this activity that hold for its all
>> duration.
>>
>> Issue: Not sure what the above statement means by "for all its durations"
>> (typo) - are we referring to characterizing attributes (for the PE) or any
>> attribute of the PE?
>>
>> 4. A process execution expression is not an entity expression. Indeed, an
>> entity expression 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.
>>
>> Issue: This is a re-phrasing of the "continuant" and "occurrent"
>> definition from the Basic Formal Ontology [1] (proposed by me in email
>> thread on PROV-ISSUE-66 [2]). I think we should cite BFO with this.
>>
>> [1]BFO: www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1
>> [2]http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-prov-**
>> wg/2011Aug/0038.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~**lavm<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 01:20:36 UTC

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