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

Hi Luc,

The current definition states that "Generation represents the creation 
of a new characterized entity by *an activity*. [...]"

What I understood is that activity in the above definition refers to a 
process execution. That is: "Generation represents the creation of a new 
characterized entity by *a process execution*. [...]"

I assumed that in the above definition the term "activity" was used 
instead of "process execution" in order not to use the concepts parts of 
the vocabulary, in this case "process execution", in the body of the 
definitions, and to confine ourselves to the use of natural language. Is 
this the case?

Thanks, khalid

On 27/07/2011 09:25, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm