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: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:20:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0Dc88KLCeUr7R+P5MmquEyFONx71waBYN1jfEDNFXCWWrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Cc: reza.bfar@oracle.com, public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 for proposals 1 and 2.
+1 for proposal 3. As long as we agree on what we are dealing with, I don't
have anything against using another name.
And if we can avoid confusion with other ontologies, then even better.

Best,
Daniel

2011/12/10 Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>

> +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 Wednesday, 14 December 2011 10:21:03 UTC

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