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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-129 (YolandaGil): Definitions of "Activity"/"Event"/"ProcessExecution" should be more crisp and differentiable in Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM) Draft [Data Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a0c5d2b6a13d6cfc3acf08f1ec785be2nAYCuO08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4ED627F6.1070709@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Yolanda,

We aligned terminology, and are now using activity and activity record.
Furthermore, the time and event section has been fully rewritten.

I trust this addresses your concerns. I am closing the issue (pending 
review).

Regards,
Luc

On 10/20/2011 07:40 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-129 (YolandaGil): Definitions of "Activity"/"Event"/"ProcessExecution" should be more crisp and differentiable in Provenance Data Model (PROV-DM) Draft [Data Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/129
>
> Raised by: Yolanda Gil
> On product: Data Model
>
> In Section 2.1, the distinction made between "activities" and "events" is very unclear.  They should be better differentiated, and more importantly they should be related to ProcessExecution which should also be better defined.  Examples should be given of all to illustrate the distinctions.
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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 12:56:57 UTC

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