W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:15:04 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|6c24edaeea8c38f36854603c7ca2b93fnA6BFB08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB7BDB8.6070506@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

With all the proposals that have been approved recently, it's now time to
answer some of the issues you raised. Find answers interleaved.

I am proposing that this issue can now be closed.

Best regards,
Luc

 > Hi, My review comments for Section 5.2.2 Process Execution in the
 > current version of the conceptual model document:
 >
 > Similar to issue with Entity, why are defining Process Execution
 > expression?

We now define records. Terminology 'record' has been (hopefully
consistently) used across the whole document.

 >
 > 1. The activity that a process execution expression is a
 > representation of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end
 > events; hence, it occurs over an interval delimited by two
 > events. However, a process execution expression need not mention time
 > information, nor duration, because they may not be known.
 >
 > Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time
 > information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without
 > having knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration
 > (delimited by events)?

Yes, in fact, we don't assert the start/end events.

 >
 > 2. Further characteristics of the activity in the world can be
 > represented by other attribute-value pairs, which must also remain
 > unchanged during the activity duration.
 >
 > Issue: If we have an attribute value for pe1: status = executing at t1
 > and status = stopped at t2, would it violate the above constraint? If
 > yes, we need to rethink the above constraint.

Simply, this should not be seen as attribute, since this is its status
at given instants.  It does not hold for the PE's whole duration.

 >
 > 3. contains a set of attribute-value pairs [ attr1=val1, ...],
 > representing other attributes of this activity that hold for its all
 > duration.
 >
 > Issue: Not sure what the above statement means by "for all its
 > durations" (typo) - are we referring to characterizing attributes (for
 > the PE) or any attribute of the PE?

Changed to: For its WHOLE duration

 >
 > 4. A process execution expression is not an entity expression. Indeed,
 > an entity expression represents a thing that exists in full at any
 > point in its characterization interval, persists during this interval,
 > and preserves the characteristics that makes it
 > identifiable. Alternatively, an activity in something that happens,
 > unfolds or develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by
 > the characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration.
 >
 > Issue: This is a re-phrasing of the "continuant" and "occurrent"
 > definition from the Basic Formal Ontology [1] (proposed by me in email
 > thread on PROV-ISSUE-66 [2]). I think we should cite BFO with this.

Yes, this is a concept from philosophy, W. E. Johnson, Logic: Part III 
(1924)
Extra citation added, referrring to the book.

 >
 > [1]BFO: www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1
 > [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html
 >


On 09/26/2011 10:13 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/101
>
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
> Hi,
> My review comments for Section 5.2.2 Process Execution in the current version of the conceptual model document:
>
> Similar to issue with Entity, why are defining Process Execution expression?
>
> 1. The activity that a process execution expression is a representation of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end events; hence, it occurs over an interval delimited by two events. However, a process execution expression need not mention time information, nor duration, because they may not be known.
>
> Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without having knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration (delimited by events)?
>
> 2. Further characteristics of the activity in the world can be represented by other attribute-value pairs, which must also remain unchanged during the activity duration.
>
> Issue: If we have an attribute value for pe1: status = executing at t1 and status = stopped at t2, would it violate the above constraint? If yes, we need to rethink the above constraint.
>
> 3. contains a set of attribute-value pairs [ attr1=val1, ...], representing other attributes of this activity that hold for its all duration.
>
> Issue: Not sure what the above statement means by "for all its durations" (typo) - are we referring to characterizing attributes (for the PE) or any attribute of the PE?
>
> 4. A process execution expression is not an entity expression. Indeed, an entity expression represents a thing that exists in full at any point in its characterization interval, persists during this interval, and preserves the characteristics that makes it identifiable. Alternatively, an activity in something that happens, unfolds or develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by the characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration.
>
> Issue: This is a re-phrasing of the "continuant" and "occurrent" definition from the Basic Formal Ontology [1] (proposed by me in email thread on PROV-ISSUE-66 [2]). I think we should cite BFO with this.
>
> [1]BFO: www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1
> [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Monday, 7 November 2011 11:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC