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

Re: Proposals to vote on related to 'event': deadline Dec 14th midnight GMT

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 12:12:07 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6xms0S0w=rWSoW-H1F8SdSemMfdv_OCwaCzpfvA4pi8Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: reza.bfar@oracle.com
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 for proposal 1
+1 for proposal 2
-1 for proposal 3 (I believe explicitly stating instantaneousEvent is
better option than re-labeling as action. Action, similar to event, has
multiple connotations including instantaneous and long running)

Best,
Satya

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Reza B'Far (Oracle)
<reza.bfar@oracle.com>wrote:

>  +1 on Proposal 1.  I think this actually resolves 2 other issues I
> brought up a couple of months ago (but let go) -- providing an "origination
> time" which is important in legal/financial applications as well as making
> a distinction between the very first time something is created vs. the
> subsequent times (for example, ratification of a law).  Anyways, great
> proposal.  I realize the nuance in the comment is a bit different than what
> I'm saying, but it doesn't matter.  There is now some mechanism to solve
> what I need :)
>
> +0 on Proposal 2.  Clear semantics and good proposal to understand, but I
> think the verbiage is awkward for beginners.  I could change to +1 if the
> verbiage is made easier.
>
> +1 on Proposal 3 conditional on going through Prov-DM and assuring that we
> don't use the words "actions" or "action" in any other context in the
> examples, etc. [hope that makes sense]
>
>
>
> On 12/9/11 10:36 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Several of you, including Satya, Tim and Jim have raised various
> concerns about events.  Here are some proposals to tackle these
> concerns in prov-dm WD3. Can you express your support in the usual
> way, we will confirm the outcome at the next teleconference.
>
> CONTEXT:
>
> 1. The concept of event as defined in prov-dm is instantaneous. On the
>    other hand, other ontologies define the concept of event, e.g. LODE
>    [1], as not instantaneous. This causes confusion, and risks
>    hampering adoption.
>
> 2. The prov-dm document (WD2) is defining 'generation' in a
>    conflicting manner.  On the one hand, in [2], it states that
>    generation is an event, so is instantaneous.  On the other hand, in
>    [3], it states that completion of generation is the event.
>
> In a generation, what we care about is the point at which the entity
> becomes available for consumption by others.  Before that, it's not an
> entity yet (or it is not this entity being generated).  So, calling
> the whole of generation an event (forget the choice of word for now)
> is not what was intended.  The event is the point at which generation
> is complete.
>
> This is actually nice reflected in Olaf and Jun's provenance
> vocabulary [4], where they have a similar concept, called Data
> Creation defined as:
>
>     DataCreation is a class that represents the completed creation of a
> data item.
>
>
> Note the choice of word *completed*.
>
> PROPOSALS:
>
>
> We therefore propose to change the definition of Generation [2] as
> follows.
> - With proposals 1 and 2, resolve the conflicting definitions around
> generation (and use) in prov-dm.
> - With proposal 3, adopt another name for event.
>
>
>
> PROPOSAL 1. Adopt the following Definition for generation.
> *In PROV-DM, a generation record is a representation of a
> world event, the completed creation of a new entity by an
> activity. This entity did not exist before this event; this entity is
> available for usage after this event.*
>
>
> Comment: With this, we are not saying that creation of an entity is
> the event, it's the completed creation that is an event.  It's also
> also fine, I believe, to regard this as instantaneous.  Also, if
> somebody wants to model the actual creation, it is also fine, they can
> use activities for that.
>
> For usage, we would take a similar approach. In the provenance
> vocabulary, they use the completed access to a data structure, but
> this is not right for what we want. Instead:
>
> PROPOSAL 2. Adopt the following Definition for usage.
> *In PROV-DM, a usage record is a representation of a world
> event: the start of an entity consumption by an activity. Before this
> event, this entity was not consumed or used in any form or shape by
> the activity, totally or partially.
> *
> Comment: These definitions are now exactly in line with those in [3].
>
>
> *PROPOSAL 3. Replace the word event by action.*
>
> Comment: So, prov-dm would define four actions: entity
> generation/entity usage/activity start/activity end, which are all
> instantaneous.  These actions would have "effects" on the system in
> the sense that they change the entities and activities it contains.
>
> Assuming proposal 3 is adopted, obviously, the text of proposals 1 and
> 2 would use the word 'action'.
>
>
> Can you express your support, or counter-proposals, by Wednesday midnight
> GMT.
> Assuming there is support, we would incorporate all these changes before
> XMas.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Luc
>
> [1] http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
> [2]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-Generation
> [3]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#types-of-events
> [4] http://trdf.sourceforge.net/provenance/ns.html#sec-DataCreationClasses
>
>
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 06:42:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC