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

Apologies for jumping in late on this topic.

In the geospatial community, "process" is the term most often associated 
with the set of processes (as captured in an overall workflow) applied to a 
specific set of content, such as a satellite image or full motion video 
feature extraction. This concept is captured in ISO 19115: Metadata as 
ProcessStep. The only reason I bring this issue to the group is that ISO 
19115 is the mandatory geospatial metadata model (and related encoding) as 
specified in the INSPIRE implementing rules in Europe as well as in a number 
of Asian countries. Further, all of the OGC Sensor Standards use the concept 
of "Process" as part of those specifications.

Obviously, names/concepts can be mapped from one to the other.

Thanks

Carl



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paolo Missier" <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
To: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: vocabulary simplification: two proposals to vote on [deadline, 
Oct 26 midnight, GMT]


> +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 15:04:17 UTC