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

vocabulary simplification: two proposals to vote on [deadline, Oct 26 midnight, GMT]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:29:41 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|983ea78338a3c163972d17d2d3528fd6n9LIV108L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EA2FD85.8060203@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Dear all,

Graham recently, and Simon previously, suggested that we define an
entity as an identifiable characterized thing.  Such a definition
would be appearing in section 2.1 [1].  This would work since PROV-DM
has a notion of 'Entity Expression' for the provenance record that
describes an entity.

Hence, there would be no confusion between an Entity Expression and an

It would further simplify the writing and presentation of PROV-DM,
because we could simply talk about entity, rather than 'identifiable
characterized thing'.

The prupose of this email is to confirm that we want to adopt this

PROPOSED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable
characterized thing.

Can you confirm your support or not for this proposal?  If not, can
you explain your reasons?

Assuming we go ahead with this proposal, section 2.1 would
define :
- 'Entity' and
- 'Activity',
whereas section 5.2 [2] would define:
- 'Entity Expression' and
- 'Process Execution Expression'

This is not symmetric and this is confusing. This issue
(PROV-ISSUE-129) was also raised by Yolanda.

The term 'Process Execution' is dating back from the charter, and was
never questioned.  It feels that Activity is more intuitive and
broader than process execution.

In the spirit of simplification [3] of the presentation and model,
I am suggesting, the following.

PROPOSED: to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'

Again, can you express your support or not for this proposal. If you
don't support it, can you make a counter-proposal. It feels that
keeping both 'Activity' and 'Process Execution Expression' is not
suitable: so the status quo is not an option, really.


[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0140.html
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 17:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:02 UTC