- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:09:23 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Martin, I think you are referring to my proposal, rather than Olaf's (unless I've misunderstood). I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument (why is a plan relevant, and why should the future be the same as the past?), but I may make my case more clearly by giving concrete examples: 1. Consider writing an browser plugin with a button "Was this page written by people I trust?" I decide to execute that query using pattern matching against the provenance of the page, to see if it is the result of an authorship process execution involving people on a trusted list. How do I express that pattern in my code? I would like to use the PIL model, but at the time of writing the code, the authorship processes have not yet occurred. So I need to refer to a hypothesised execution of a page in the future. 2. I am responsible for a laboratory and have regulations regarding how materials are treated to avoid contamination. I want to express computationally expectations on the provenance of the results which will be produced: not their detailed provenance, but the steps I expect to be included to avoid contamination. I am therefore expressing executions which have not yet occurred, and maybe never will if regulations are not followed. I would like the model to be able to handle each of the cases above. If I require executions to be in the past (and not just from the perspective of the assertion), I don't believe I can. Thanks, Simon On 14 June 2011 13:48, martin <martin@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > +1 to the proposal "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is > >>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of > >>> a process execution is always in the past." > > > To my opinion, if we accept Olaf's proposal, we start messing up workflow systems > with provenance. It is very difficult to find objective criteria that a planned event, > completely in the future, is actually identical to one that is in the past. It becomes > even more messy, if we want to identify the Actors for future events etc. In the CIDOC > CRM working group, we could not agree on a coherent definition of future events that can > become real for more than a decade. The future event is a plan, a document. This is consistent > with any view on reality. > > We should stay focussed. "Provenance" is a notion of the past. > > For a process which has started (in the past), we can assert an outer bound, > (any time before or equal to the start: plus infinity, using P82 in the CIDOC CRM), > and an interval for which it is known to be ongoing (from start to "now", P81 in the (CIDOC CRM). > The proposal on vote is consistent with ISO21127. > > Martin > > > On 6/14/2011 2:50 PM, Olaf Hartig wrote: >> On Tuesday 14 June 2011 13:29:27 Simon Miles wrote: >>> +1 except for the caveat made in the last teleconference, e.g. I might >>> be modelling what I expect the provenance of something to be in 10 >>> years time, in which case the execution is in the past of an imagined >>> future, not in the past from now. >>> >>> So I would qualify the definition to something like: >>> "the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the >>> position of any assertion made about it." >> >> +1 to the proposal with that extension. >> >> Olaf >> >>> Thanks, >>> Simon >>> >>> On 14 June 2011 11:48, Paul Groth<pgroth@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi All: >>>> >>>> In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it would be >>>> good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process execution >>>> being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last >>>> telecon: >>>> >>>> "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is >>>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of >>>> a process execution is always in the past." >>>> >>>> Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a response >>>> to this email message? >>>> >>>> The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: martin@ics.forth.gr | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:09:52 UTC