Difference between revisions of "Talk:F2F1ConceptDefinitions"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
* I think we should note that a process execution is an entity state itself, i.e. it has invariant properties for which can be part of provenance (SMiles)
 
* I think we should note that a process execution is an entity state itself, i.e. it has invariant properties for which can be part of provenance (SMiles)
 +
* Can one entity state be generated by more than one process execution? (Luc)
  
 
== Process Execution ==
 
== Process Execution ==

Revision as of 21:19, 6 July 2011

  • I think we should note that a process execution is an entity state itself, i.e. it has invariant properties for which can be part of provenance (SMiles)
  • Can one entity state be generated by more than one process execution? (Luc)

Process Execution

Some questions regarding the (current) process execution definition (Paulo):

  1. Is the process execution an assertion of a BOB, a derivation of a BOB, or something else? If the type of a process execution is irrelevant, how can one know if the output of BOB was or not related to some information transformation processing or if the outcome is the output of a straight look up process? If it is a derivation, how can one know which information transformation occurred?
  2. What is an activity? What is a piece of work?
  3. The term generates implies creating something. Can the process be a retrieval of BOB? If this is the case, would it be the generated BOB a new BOB or an existing BOB?
  4. What is the relevance for provenance of a process that does not outcome any BOB?