Re: vocabulary simplification: two proposals to vote on [deadline, Oct 26 midnight, GMT]

+1

Something I see ignored in the thread is the effect of terminology on 
adoption.  If the terminology is complex or very foreign to the average 
developer, this standard will have issues getting adoption.  I've never 
really been comfortable with "Process Execution".  When I've tried to 
explain it to folks in my dev team, I get the "ha?.... why is it called 
Process Execution".  It's a case of WTMI in the name.

Also, it seems like there is good alignment with OMG's definition of 
Activity in UML.

On 10/22/11 10:29 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Graham recently, and Simon previously, suggested that we define an
> entity as an identifiable characterized thing.  Such a definition
> would be appearing in section 2.1 [1].  This would work since PROV-DM
> has a notion of 'Entity Expression' for the provenance record that
> describes an entity.
>
> Hence, there would be no confusion between an Entity Expression and an
> Entity.
>
> It would further simplify the writing and presentation of PROV-DM,
> because we could simply talk about entity, rather than 'identifiable
> characterized thing'.
>
> The prupose of this email is to confirm that we want to adopt this
> terminology.
>
> PROPOSED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable
> characterized thing.
>
> Can you confirm your support or not for this proposal?  If not, can
> you explain your reasons?
>
> Assuming we go ahead with this proposal, section 2.1 would
> define :
> - 'Entity' and
> - 'Activity',
> whereas section 5.2 [2] would define:
> - 'Entity Expression' and
> - 'Process Execution Expression'
>
> This is not symmetric and this is confusing. This issue
> (PROV-ISSUE-129) was also raised by Yolanda.
>
> The term 'Process Execution' is dating back from the charter, and was
> never questioned.  It feels that Activity is more intuitive and
> broader than process execution.
>
> In the spirit of simplification [3] of the presentation and model,
> I am suggesting, the following.
>
> PROPOSED: to rename 'process execution' by 'activity'
>
> Again, can you express your support or not for this proposal. If you
> don't support it, can you make a counter-proposal. It feels that
> keeping both 'Activity' and 'Process Execution Expression' is not
> suitable: so the status quo is not an option, really.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#conceptualization
> [2] 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-element
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0140.html
>