- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:25:34 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|2dd155001c96dfac26a7ea0aae8d6990n6Q9Pb08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E2FCB7E>
Hi Khalid, I don't understand your comment. The text states: A process execution represents an identifiable activity, which performs a piece of work. Process execution is a pil language construct. It would make no sense to write "Generation represents the creation of a new identifiable characterized entity by a *process execution*." A characterized entity is not created by a language construct! It is created by the activity that the language construct represents. Luc On 07/27/2011 09:19 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > Hi Luc, > > As Satya, I understood that identifiable activity in the the > definition refers to process execution. I didn't raise an issue > because I thought there was an effort in the definitions to avoid > using the vocabulary that we are defining and use only natural > language. Is that the case? > > khalid > > > On 27/07/2011 08:29, Luc Moreau wrote: >> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> > -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 08:26:15 UTC