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: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:14:55 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|3be449c65263717b9c08e307aba7c7bbnAYCEw08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4ED61E3F.20705@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

Can you confirm you are happy with the closing of this issue?

In addition, the latest version of the WD has a rewritten section on 
time and event,
which should further address your concerns.

Regards,
Luc


On 11/07/2011 11:15 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 30 November 2011 12:15:23 UTC

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