ISSUE-101: Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review)

Conceptual Model

Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review)

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm

Raised by:

Satya Sahoo

Opened on:

2011-09-26

Description:

Hi,
My review comments for Section 5.2.2 Process Execution in the current version of the conceptual model document:

Similar to issue with Entity, why are defining Process Execution expression?

1. The activity that a process execution expression is a representation of has a duration, delimited by its start and its end events; hence, it occurs over an interval delimited by two events. However, a process execution expression need not mention time information, nor duration, because they may not be known.

Issue: Is it possible that event information, similar to time information, may not be known? Is it possible to define a PE without having knowledge about its start and end events and also its duration (delimited by events)?

2. Further characteristics of the activity in the world can be represented by other attribute-value pairs, which must also remain unchanged during the activity duration.

Issue: If we have an attribute value for pe1: status = executing at t1 and status = stopped at t2, would it violate the above constraint? If yes, we need to rethink the above constraint.

3. contains a set of attribute-value pairs [ attr1=val1, ...], representing other attributes of this activity that hold for its all duration.

Issue: Not sure what the above statement means by "for all its durations" (typo) - are we referring to characterizing attributes (for the PE) or any attribute of the PE?

4. A process execution expression is not an entity expression. Indeed, an entity expression represents a thing that exists in full at any point in its characterization interval, persists during this interval, and preserves the characteristics that makes it identifiable. Alternatively, an activity in something that happens, unfolds or develops through time, but is typically not identifiable by the characteristics it exhibits at any point during its duration.

Issue: This is a re-phrasing of the "continuant" and "occurrent" definition from the Basic Formal Ontology [1] (proposed by me in email thread on PROV-ISSUE-66 [2]). I think we should cite BFO with this.

[1]BFO: www.ifomis.org/bfo/1.1
[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0038.html

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-200: Section 6.3 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm] (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2011-12-10)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-12-08)
3. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2011-12-07)
4. Re: PROV-ISSUE-187: Section 5.2.2 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-12-07)
5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-30)
6. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-08)
7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2011-11-08)
8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-07)
9. PROV-ISSUE-101 (Conceptual Model): Section 5.2.2 ProcessExecution (conceptual model document review) [Conceptual Model] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-09-26)

Related notes:

Display change log