- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:23:16 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 to proposal 1. -1 to proposal 2. "Activity" implies an actor, or agent, which, if we want to describe natural events (like a hurricane) is incorrrect. "Event" is better, as it has no connotations around agency. Jim On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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 > Entity. > > 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 > terminology. > > 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. > > Cheers, > Luc > > > [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 > > > -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 16:24:05 UTC