Re: PROV-ISSUE-184: Section 2.1.2 (PROV-DM version as on Nov 28th) [prov-dm]

Hi Luc,
Thanks for addressing the generation and usage issues. I am comfortable
with the updated definitions and closing the issue.

I believe we have still not decided about event?



On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Luc Moreau <>wrote:

> Hi Satya and Jim,
> I believe the proposals
> address this issue, and changes have now been implemented. See:
> We didn't reach consensus to replace the word 'event' by another term.
> I have added links from occurrences of this word to its definition, and
> also have added the adjective 'instananeous' where I felt clarification was
> needs.
> I propose to close this issue, pending review.
> Best regards,
> Luc
> On 12/07/2011 01:43 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-184: Section 2.1.2 (PROV-DM version as on Nov 28th) [prov-dm]
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: prov-dm
>> Hi,
>> The following are my comments regarding Section 2.1.2 of the PROV-DM
>> document as on Nov 28, 2011.
>> Section 2.1.2:
>> 1. "Hence, in our conceptualization of the world, an instantaneous event,
>> or event for short, happens in the world and marks a change in the world,
>> in its activities and in its entities."
>> Comment: According to this definition, an activity is also an event,
>> since "it happens in the world and marks a change in the world".
>> Section states "A generation event may be, for example, the
>> creation of a file by a program, the creation of a linked data set, the
>> production of a new version of a document, and the sending of a value on a
>> communication channel." So, generation event is being used as a synonym of
>> an activity?
>> In addition, Section 2.1.1 describes a world as "real or not" and
>> includes "digital, conceptual etc." - an event in many scenario will not
>> mark a change in "that" world. For example, person looks at the clock and
>> continues in previous state - it is an event but what changed in the world?
>> 2. "events represent communications or interactions; they are assumed to
>> be atomic and instantaneous."
>> Comment: This is contradictory to what is stated in Section, "A
>> usage event may be the consumption of a parameter by a procedure, the
>> reading of a value on a port by a service, the reading of a configuration
>> file by a program, or the adding of an ingredient, such as eggs, in a
>> baking activity." The reading of a configuration file by program is not
>> instantaneous? Adding of eggs in baking activity is not instantaneous? As I
>> have commented on the previous version of DM, this is an artificial
>> requirement for events to be instantaneous.
>> In addition, why is it required that events are atomic? Adding ingredient
>> in a baking activity is never atomic - egg shells are broken, egg is
>> stirred, egg mix is slowly added to the cake batter, while the batter is
>> mixed continuously etc. Similarly, for events such as reading of file -
>> access is checked, read lock is acquired, i-node is updated, reader process
>> reads content of file etc.
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
> United Kingdom           **lavm<>

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 12:28:33 UTC