- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:14:55 +0000
- 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