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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:38:26 +0000
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9508951c01265263bddea79054ed69f5n9MLcq08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|06A9FDCC-27BA-49F5-8D3F-E94BD6851D66@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Daniel,
Events will be the subject of separate proposals.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 23 Oct 2011, at 20:05, "Daniel Garijo" <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es<mailto:dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>> wrote:

Hi Luc, all.
Are the "events" going to still be present on section 2.1? I don't see very clear the difference between "activity" and "event":
They are both involved in changing "things", but the event seems like an instantaneous activity.

As for the votes:

  *   +1 to define an entity as an identifiable characterized thing. I think it makes everything clear.
  *   +0 to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'. I think process execution is clear enough, but if the rest consider that it can be
confusing, then I'm ok with the renaming.


2011/10/22 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>

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.


[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#conceptualization
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-element
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0140.html
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 20:40:54 UTC

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