ISSUE-71: Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing)

Conceptual Model draft

Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing)

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm

Raised by:

Satya Sahoo

Opened on:

2011-08-06

Description:

Hi,
I am reviewing the current draft of the conceptual model as part of our work on the formal model and will be posting comments/suggested changes in a section-wise manner:

Section 3.2:
_____________

1. What is the difference between e0 and e1? Since we have "Event evt1: Alice creates (pe0) an empty file in /share/crime.txt. We denote this e1.", clearly the file "share/crime.txt" did not exist prior to the time that event evt1 started/happened?

2. "The entities, as characterized, hold during intervals delimited by events." - What does "hold" mean? Existence?

3. In "The following table lists all entities and their corresponding validity intervals" does "validity interval" means their existence or something else?

4. The duration of existence ("validity interval"") of entities should be time interval and not "event intervals".

5. Why is the validity/existence of e4 limited to event evt5 (this should be a time value and not event as discussed in point (4))- we do not have any information that it stopped being e4 after evt5 ("Event evt5: Edith emails (pe4) the contents of /share/crime.txt as an attachment, referred to as e5.")

6. What does "t" mean in "processExecution(pe0,create-file,t)" - duration of process, start of process, or end of process? Why are we associating time value with some PE and not with others, "processExecution(pe5,spellcheck)" since time is not mentioned in Section 3.1 "File Scenario"?

7. "isGeneratedBy(e0,pe0,outFile)" and "isGeneratedBy(e1,pe0,outContent)" is not consistent with "Alice creates (pe0) an empty file in /share/crime.txt. We denote this e1." from Section 3.1. There is no connection between pe0 and e0 asserted? In addition, since pe0 led to creation of "empty file", what does "isGeneratedBy(e1,pe0,outContent)" mean?

8. Does "isGeneratedBy(e4,pe2,attachment)" mean that we are considering "emails" (pe2) to include the process of "attaching a file to a mail", which in turn includes the processes "copying file e2", "uploading to email server, thereby creating the file e4 in the email server"?

9. "To distinguish the various entities generated by a given process execution, a role (construct described in Section Role) is introduced." - since we already have different identifier for the entities e1, e2, etc. we are not using role to differentiate between entities. The different "roles" maybe more relevant to identify specific types of processes, for example "fileCreation", "addingContent", "attachingFile" etc.?

10. Similarly, for "Uses" property, we are not using "roles" to distinguish the various entities. The given role examples "in and fileIn" may help us differentiate between the PEs - one may be "addingContent" (pe3) and "spellchecking" (pe5) processes - but I think roles are redundant here since we are already using different identifiers for these two PEs.

11. In "Control", we say "the nature of this influence is described by a role (construct described in Section Role).", but the example roles are describing the entities "Alice - creator", "Bob - author", "Charles - communicator". Further, these roles can be used to characterize the types of processes "fileCreation" etc. as described in points (9) and (10). Examples of roles for "Control" (maybe represented as sub properties) are "starts", "stops", "pauses" etc.

12. Does an event have a time duration or does it happen in a time instant? How is event related to PE or other concepts? Is there a need to have a provenance concept called "event" - alternatively we can describe the File Scenario in Section 3.1 using time values?

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-30)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-09-23)
3. Re: new release of PROV-DM document (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2011-09-21)
4. new release of PROV-DM document (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-09-19)
5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-25)
6. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2011-08-25)
7. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-24)
8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2011-08-24)
9. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-23)
10. Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-07)
11. PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-08-06)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log