Re: PROV-ISSUE-94 (pe-attributes): are process executions characterized in the same way as entities? [Conceptual Model]

My qualm here is that the standard is better if it is simpler, and if
it is only constraining where there is a clear benefit.

The impetus for entities to have characterising attributes, as I
understand, is that we need to be clear which of multiple perspectives
on a thing we are making an assertion about when giving its
provenance, e.g. "the report", "version 1 of the report", or "version
1 of the report on Simon's PC".

Is there similar need for process executions to have characterising
attributes, or is it just making the standard more complex?

I also note that there was argument against process execution being a
sub-class of entity, but this would remove further distinction between
them.

Thanks,
Simon

On 11 September 2011 16:49, Khalid Belhajjame
<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 22:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-94 (pe-attributes): are process executions characterized in the same way as entities? [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/94
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>>
>> are process executions characterized in the same way as entities? Should we give attributes to process executions?
>>
>
> Just like entities, I think that process executions should have an
> identifier and a set of attributes that characterize them. That said, I
> think that in the case of process executions, we can try to specify the
> list of attributes, or at least a subset, that can be used for this
> purpose: e.g., description, type (manual, automatic), etc.
>
> Khalid
>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:22:26 UTC