- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:18:15 +0000
- To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Jun 2011, at 22:47, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: > Luc, > > I would strongly support 1. > > I support 2 on the understanding that by defining "recipe link" we > would be defining "recipe" in the minimal way we need anyway, i.e. its > role in provenance but not its nature or form. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 3. Terminology for what? Do you just > mean better terms for "recipe link" and "process execution"? Yes and also process specification, if we find necessary to do so > > Thanks, > Simon > > On 7 June 2011 22:26, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi Satya, >> >> The following quote is taken from the charter: >> >>> Recipe link: we will not define what the recipe is, what we mean here is >>> just a standard way to refer to a recipe (a pointer). >>> The development of standard ways to describe these recipes is out of >>> scope. >> >> It's in that sense that I said that process specification (which I regard as >> the same as recipe in the charter) is out of scope. >> >> Why out of scope? simply because there already many process specification >> languages, in many communities, some of >> which are already standard (process algebrae, workflow languages, business >> process languages, etc). >> >> What do you think? >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> On 07/06/11 17:49, Satya Sahoo wrote: >> >> Hi all, >>> process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter >>> and is out of scope for this WG >> Since, we have a proposed concept for "recipe link" - >> (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptRecipeLink), which refers to some >> process specification/recipe I am not sure whether process specification >> should be out of scope. >> In our journalism example, if we consider the process (pubProc) by which >> government (gov) publishes its data (d) as web resource (r) - it is clearly >> a process specification/protocol. >> The publication of data (d1) as web resource (r1) is an instance/execution >> of the publication process (pubProc1). >> If due to error in publishing the web resource (r1), the publication process >> is changed (to say pubProc_updated) then we need to be able to describe this >> as part the provenance also. >> In the biomedical/bench science, the experiment protocol is an important >> concept and is often part of the provenance of experiment results. >> Summary: we should have a concept called "process" that can be specialized >> further to describe process specification or process execution as required. >> Process is well understood in many knowledge representation/conceptual >> modeling, so we can simply re-use their existing definition [1]. >> Thanks. >> Best, >> Satya >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution#Definition_by_Satya >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Given that we have a busy agenda on Thursday, we may not have time to >>> discuss issues related to the model. >>> >>> There is some commonality in the definitions of Process Execution [1]. >>> >>> Hence, before putting the following proposal to a formal vote, I would >>> like >>> to get a feel as to whether the proposal would get support, or whether >>> it needs to be amended. >>> >>> PROPOSED: >>> 1. there is a distinction between process execution and process >>> specification/definition >>> 2. process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the >>> charter and is out of scope for this WG >>> 3. terminology needs to be agreed on >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptProcessExecution >>> >>> Regards, >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> > > > > -- > Dr Simon Miles > Lecturer, Department of Informatics > Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK > +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:19:13 UTC