- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:55:20 +0200
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 -- as discussed separately with Luc -Paolo On 10/26/11 2:53 AM, Yolanda Gil wrote: > +1 on both. I like the term "activity". > > > On Oct 22, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Luc Moreau 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 > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 07:55:49 UTC