Change Proposal: Rename WasTriggeredBy edge

Authors

Natalia Kwasnikowska, Jan Van den Bussche, Luc Moreau

Subject

Applies to OPM v1.01

Background

At the first OPM workshop in Utah, some teams were worried about the non-intuitive name "wasTriggeredBy". The workshop minutes FirstOPMWorkshopMinutes indicate: "wasTriggeredBy may imply that the cause is both necessary and sufficient for the effect. The name may need to be changed to remove this implication".

Problem addressed

The definition of wasTriggeredBy is as follows: Definition 7 (Process Triggered by Process) A connection of a process P2 to a process P1 by a "was triggered by" edge indicates that the start of process P1 was required for P2 to be able to complete. The word "trigger" in English does not capture this notion: in English P2 was triggered by P1 tends to convey that the start of P2 was caused by P1.

We are not proposing to change the definition. Instead, we changing the edge name.

Proposed solution

Rename "was triggered by" by "*was informed by*". For P2 to be able to complete, the start of P1 is required. This means that some information must flow from P1 to P2.

Rationale for the solution

More precise English term should better disambiguate OPM semantics.

Comments

Community is invited to provide comments on proposals.

comment 1

include authors

Trigger does have the right connotation to me - a trigger can be fairly peripheral but it is clearly required. I can understand why informed by is proposed, but I think we will have more issues explaining that if you don't record what artifact passes between processes you just say one informed the other. I think we do have limitation in OPM in that we don't distinguish data flow and control flow - if we make a change here, I'd suggest trying to find two edges that convey when the process depends on the existence of an unstated artifact from a prior process and when it depends on the content of the unstated artifact....

-- JimMyers - 17 Sep 2009

comment 2

I agree with the proposers' point of view here, although I believe this to be a really minor issue.

Comment 3 by Simon Miles

I can see why "trigger" gives the wrong idea for the reasons described, but I agree with Jim that "informed" also seems wrong for the reason that it sounds unnecessary for the process to terminate (or for anything at all). However, I don't have any great alternative to suggest: "was required by" or "was dependent on" may be a bit too general.

Comment from Joe Futrelle

My objection to "informed" is the same as Simon's: it doesn't sufficiently denote causality. I understand the problem with "triggered" but any alternative term needs to be closer to the desired meaning, not further away. We may be stuck here, because we can't change the specification of English ...

Comment by Paul Groth

I agree that trigged by should be changed and that informed is not such a great substitute. I would suggest "contributed to" as the replacement.

Vote

Luc Moreau, Yes

Jim Myers, No

Paolo Missier, yes

Simon Miles, yes (but I don't like "was informed by" for reasons above)

Joe Futrelle, No

Paul Groth, yes (but I would suggest using "had contribution from" instead of "was informed by")

NataliaKwasnikowska, yes

Jan Van den Bussche, yes (I feel "informed-by" is right on the button)

-- EricStephan - 24 Sep 2009, No

Outcome

In fact, we should have had two votes.

1. Do you agree that the name wasTriggeredBy does not convey the intended meaning given by its definition
2. Do you want to rename wasTriggeredBy into wasInformedBy

We didn't vote on the first point, but comments seem to indicate that there is a concensus: wasTriggeredBy is not the right word.

We voted on the second point, and the outcome is (Yes: 3, no: 2, alternative names desirable: 2). So there is no clear majority on this issue and the recommendation is to find a better name.

-- LucMoreau - 15 Jun 2009
to top