Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model]

Hi Satya,

I don't think so.
   pil:generation, pil:BOB and pil:processExecution are constructs of 
the provenance language

activity and entity should be understood with their natural language 
meaning.

Hence, a process execution is not the same as an activity, but is a 
representation of an activity.

Luc

On 07/27/2011 02:04 AM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi,
> Reading Paul/Luc's definition for isGeneratedBy:
> "Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable 
> characterized entity by an identifiable activity."
>
> can we interpret that "identifiable activity" is same as "process 
> execution"? If yes, then we should use "process execution" directly 
> instead of using its definition (description?).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Paolo Missier 
> <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk <mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     can we just state upfront that assertions can only be made about
>
>     - C-entities that are identifiable
>     - activities that are identifiable
>
>     -Paolo
>
>
>
>      On 7/25/11 8:45 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>         I suppose that if we follow this argument thoroughly, we
>         should write:
>
>         "Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable
>         characterized entity by an identifiable activity."
>
>         (We also have to do the same with Use ...)
>
>         Definitions are becoming quite heavy ... thoughts?
>
>         Luc
>
>
>
>

-- 
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