- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:23:53 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 for 1. I support 2. And I strongly support 3. -- Jun On 07/06/11 23:18, Luc Moreau wrote: > > > 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 Thursday, 9 June 2011 15:24:31 UTC