- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:56:25 +0000
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|5116439583b4bdac78ee508548de30f7nB78uY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EE07BB9>
Hi Satya, Sorry, but I find it impossible to continue a discussion thread that was inactive for a month. I believe that this issue is now superseded by PROV-ISSUE-187. Furthermore, the identifier issue is PROV-ISSUE-183. I am now closing PROV-ISSUE-101. Luc On 12/08/2011 01:20 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > 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 <http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1> > > > [2]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 > > 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 <http://www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1> > [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html > > > > > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > -- 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
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:57:12 UTC