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: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:23:39 -0600
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B0B8AAE2-F26C-4FBB-98B0-3123FAE1E529@rpi.edu>

On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> It's prov-dm that constraints PEs to be in the past. It can do the same for activity.

It can, but I am hesitant to add constraints to well-known terminology that is not present in common usage of the term.

Activity also feels like process, in it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to a specific occurrent or can be used as a continuant to describe a form of potential action.

As an example using common english, I could say that bowling is an activity.  This is not a provenance statement. 

Its only when I say that a specific person has participated in bowling that I put it in the past as something that occurred, but it seems to me the same argument can be made about process.

I guess I think the same arguments that were raised against process would logically hold for activity.

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 19:24:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:03 UTC