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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:56:25 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5116439583b4bdac78ee508548de30f7nB78uY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EE07BB9.9030005@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
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 I believe that this issue is now superseded by PROV-ISSUE-187.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

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