RE: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in the past

To clarify my "provenance is past tense" entry on the irc today - to me
the important thing is that provenance is an account in the past tense
of what has occurred, not what might occur. That simply means you'll
never have to describe both branches of a coin flip - after it has
happened (past tense), only one branch occurred. If you want to write
down in PIL that in the future a coin flip will have resulted in
'heads', I don't think it's an issue. If you want to talk about the two
potential outcomes, I think we'd need to add to the language and it
wouldn't be provenance anymore (workflow instead).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>] On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:34 AM
> To: Paul Groth
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in
the past
> 0 - I'm happy to proceed with this as a working assumption, but remain
> unconvinced that it needs to be locked in to the overall model.
> #g
> --
> Paul Groth wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it
> > be good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process
> > being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last
> >
> > "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or
> > occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start
> > of a process execution is always in the past."
> >
> > Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a
> > response to this email message?
> >
> > The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 16:53:30 UTC