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: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:38:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4EE9CE2C.7040007@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org

+1 for proposal 1
+1 for proposal 2
-1 for proposal 3

I do not think we need to use action instead of event. Rather, we 
should, just like in Proposal 1 and 2, specify the kind of event when 
there is room for ambiguity/confusion. The second argument against the 
use of action is that IMO the use of the terms activity and action 
within the same language/vocabulary may lead to issues later on.


Thanks, khalid


On 14/12/2011 12:16, 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
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:41:36 UTC

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