Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'

Jim,

> can't I say the egg was heated without reporting its cold and warm states? I.e. don't we want to be able to report that something was modified without having to report the IVPTs? A document was edited four times by different people but I don't wan't to/can't tell you what each wrote at each stage?

For the first of these, can't we just express it as the following?
 1. X was generated by Heated which used Y (as per Luc's generated definition)
 2. Egg is an abstraction of X and Y
We do not have to say anything about X and Y other than Egg being
their abstraction.

For the second, it would be:
 1. Z was generated by Edited which used/was controlled by Simon, Jim,
Luc and Khalid
 2. My Document is an abstraction of Z

X, Y, Z, Egg, Simon, Jim, Luc, Khalid, and My Document are all IPVTs,
as we treat them as invariant for the purpose of what we want to
assert (i.e. from our perspective).

Thanks,
Simon

On 10 June 2011 02:31, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:
> This would mean that a heating process modifies an egg to create a warm egg, it does not transform a cold egg into a warm egg?
>
> Or do you mean both - a process execution can turn one thing into another, these things can be considered IVPTs of a thing that participates in the process execution/ is modified by the process execution? And in an open world assumption, a witness doesn't have to report the modified thing or can decline to identify/report either of things in IVPT roles depending on their ability to observe and the use case they wish to enable?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Luc Moreau
> Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 6:44 PM
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> - if a new thing is created, it is clear that we have a new IVPT of that thing
>
> if a chicken creates an egg is it just an IVPT of an egg?
>
> - if the thing is modified, then it is a requirement that a new view (IVPT) is generated ...
>       otherwise, it would still be a view that existed before
>
> can't I say the egg was heated without reporting its cold and warm states? I.e. don't we want to be able to report that something was modified without having to report the IVPTs? A document was edited four times by different people but I don't wan't to/can't tell you what each wrote at each stage?
>
> - if the process execution was taking a long time to modify/create the thing, there is only one
>   instant at which the (invariant!) IVPT appears
>
> I thnk we could define it that way, but if a cracking process takes time, saying the cracked egg appears instantaneously basically means you want 'cracked egg' to be defined by some threshold - the cracked egg might become more cracked over time ) invariant only in that it is always above the threshold and the instance of the creation of the IVPT relationship occurs ata  aspecific instant.
>
> - I think this captures well a stateful objects, where processes can modify the object, resulting in
>   different IVPTs corresponding to the various states
>
> IVPTs are not a separate kind of thing and their invariance is relative. If they are truly immutable sates/snapshopts, they can only exist for an instant because some part of the state of the thing (a part we may not care about such as age) will change immediately.
>
> What do you think?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptGeneration#Definition_of_Generation_by_Luc
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Friday, 10 June 2011 13:14:24 UTC