tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831813422886730737.post1458312872323554415..comments2023-10-08T10:44:28.524+03:00Comments on Event Processing Thinking: The trap of ambiguity - case of "event correlation"Opher Etzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10791357917675270335noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831813422886730737.post-45272070274973151262007-09-29T19:58:00.000+02:002007-09-29T19:58:00.000+02:00Opher,I agree, terminology has a lot to do with ea...Opher,<BR/><BR/>I agree, terminology has a lot to do with ease of adoption, and "event correlation" is problematic. <BR/><BR/>One avenue of exploration for a new term is to imagine what is the purpose of such a word? For example I could imagine that after examining many "events" one may want to take some action, yes? So then there is before us:<BR/>1. The act/process of trying to ascertain something (pattern recognition)<BR/>2. The act/process of declaring that in fact you specifically ascertained "such and such, at this location, time, &tc). <BR/>3, The act/process of doing something once you ascertained something specific.<BR/><BR/>The higher level you can keep the language, the more accessible it will be to decision makers in business, gov't, military. In other words, we shouldn't choose words that sound too techy. After all event processing is supposed to be going "up" the semantic scale, yes?<BR/><BR/>So maybe some words that could apply to the above would be:<BR/>1. environment monitoring<BR/>2. situation recognized<BR/>3. situation processed<BR/>I think you even have used the 'situation' word before in conference presentations.<BR/><BR/>It's the "situation processed" that provides a linkage to well defined BPEL-like possibly transactional processing. The event or situation stuff is more like ad-hoc glue in between. Bob Wilson promotes this distinction and I agree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16159576367477007568noreply@blogger.com