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

Hi Luc,
> PROPOSED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable characterized
thing.
+1 (thought this was already conveyed in current version of PROV-DM)

>PROPOSED: to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'
0 (need clarification w.r.t what happens to recipe since activity can mean
both PE and Process Specification).

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

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<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<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<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0140.html>
>
>