- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:29 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EE935CD.5090808@inf.ed.ac.uk>
I'm happy with the first two proposals: 1: +1 2: +1 For the third, -1 to "action" -1 to "milestone" I think the term "milestone" has too much baggage - it has a fairly specific meaning in software engineering/project management (and a different one in road planning!) I think "instantaneous event" is clearest among options so far. It may be clumsy to always say "instantaneous event" - instead it might be easiest to say up front (and wherever there is potential for confusion) that we consider events to be instantaneous. The term "durative" can be used for events that have a duration. --James On 14/12/11 16:43, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 1: +1 > 2: +1 (with some rephrasing to simplify) > 3: Use "milestone" > > -Tim Lebo > > > On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Jim McCusker wrote: > >> I agree with Jim Meyers. >> >> 1: +1 >> 2: +1 >> 3: Use 'milestone' to replace event, see Jim's justifications. >> >> Jim McCusker >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu >> <mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>> wrote: >> >> +1 for 1 >> >> +1 for 2 >> >> Suggest ‘milestone’ to replace event – I think one challenge we >> have with the current nomenclature (activities and events) and >> action is that we’re choosing synonyms for process instance which >> is making us think that we have two type of process instances >> that we’re documenting in the provenance. I think the case is >> really that we have one type of process instance (activity) and >> some ‘artificial’ boundaries within those activities (not another >> set of shorter activities we need to find a name for). >> “Milestone” has that sense of being an artificial boundary – a >> line that is crossed – rather than a really short/instantaneous >> happening, and so might be a useful alternative. >> >> Jim >> >> *From:*Paolo Missier [mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk >> <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:39 AM >> *To:* public-prov-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-prov-wg@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: Proposals to vote on related to 'event': deadline >> Dec 14th midnight GMT >> >> consistent with previous internal discussions: >> >> +1 for 1 >> +1 for 2 >> 0 for 3 >> >> Regards >> --Paolo >> >> >> On 12/14/11 12:16 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> Thanks to those who have already voted. >> This email acts as a reminder. >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 12/09/2011 06:36 PM, 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ----------- ~oo~ -------------- >> >> Paolo Missier -Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk>,pmissier@acm.org <mailto:pmissier@acm.org> >> >> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK >> >> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/> >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu> >> http://tw.rpi.edu <http://tw.rpi.edu/> >
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 23:49:07 UTC