Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]

Hi Luc,

OK, I believe I understand your intuition, but would argue:

1. A process execution currently fits the definition of a BOB, as it
has assertable characteristics, is identifiable, and is an entity,
i.e. bounded.

2. I was not clear we wanted to restrict BOBs to endurants. For
example, at the F2F1, Tim raised the case of expressing that something
changed temperature by 10 degrees (and why), without asserting what
the start and end temperatures were. If I remember correctly, you and
I argued that the temperature change could be seen as an (invariant)
attribute of a BOB, because BOBs are not necessarily instantaneous.
And if I understand endurants and perdurants correctly, I think the
change is a perdurant because at any moment, the change itself is not
apparent.

Intuitively, it seems reasonable that a process execution is something
you can ask the provenance of ("why did this execution occur as it
did?"). This might or might not be fully answered by saying what the
execution used, who it was controlled by, when it started, and what
recipe it followed.

I recognise that it makes things complicated, in that a process
execution (as a BOB) could be "generated" or "used" by another
execution, but perhaps this is what we mean by the "ordering of
processes" concept anyway. The existing definition "Generation
represents the creation of a new characterized entity by an activity.
This characterized entity did not exist before creation." seems to fit
the notion of one process starting another one quite nicely.

To be more constructive, here's my counter-proposal.

* We add "characterized entity" to the process execution definition,
e.g. "A process execution represents an activity which performs a
piece of work. An activity is a kind of identifiable characterized
entity."

No other change seems necessary, though some explanation of the
consequences may be needed. We might then have also covered "ordering
of processes", at least in a causal sense (temporal ordering is
different).

Thanks,
Simon

On 1 August 2011 09:14, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> To me, process executions are the "verbs", whereas BOBs are the "nouns",
> and therefore
> belong to different categories.
>
> Several people have also mentioned they relate to perdurant/endurant in
> formal ontologies.
>
> Being identifiable is therefore not the key characteristic!
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> PS. In a separate thread, you mentioned that IVPof could be used for
> process executions.
>    This may make sense, but in that case we simply need to change the
> signature of IVP of:
>         BOB x BOB   U   PE x PE
>
>
>
> On 07/29/2011 05:22 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/66
>>
>> Raised by: Simon Miles
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>> This was mentioned by Satya in the call, but I can't see it having been raised as an issue yet.
>>
>> As process executions are identified and may have attributes, including start and end time, are they kinds of characterised entities, similarly to agent? If not, why not?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Monday, 1 August 2011 10:09:32 UTC