W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:02:11 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|bbe60f592eee87bd7a9ac4350c2e0217n59G2H08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DF231F3.1030101@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim,
Is it necessary to talk about shorthands at this stage?
It's important to note what we want to express in a abbreviated manner,
(e.g. author, etc), but looking at shortcuts now seems to complicate
our defining concepts.

I would suggest we have a stab at definitions, and then, apply them to
examples, and see where abbreviations would be desirable.

Cheers,
Luc

On 06/10/2011 02:56 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> I think so. Trying to reiterate without changing what you say:
>
> I think you're saying I can report:
>
> P1 used X
> Y generatedby P1
> X and Y IVPT's of 'egg'
>
> Which I think is valid. I was suggesting the shorthand
>
> 'egg' participatedin P1
>
> To express that. I.e. you don't have to create X and Y if they are completely undescribed/blank - probably could infer that they exist if you wanted to expand the graph. I think you could also add that statement to the first set to get a complete picture.
>
> Another variant that might be useful
>
> 'egg' participated in P1
> Y generated by P1
> Y IVPT of 'egg'
> Y hasTemperature 80 degrees F
>
> Or the reverse with only X described.
>
>   Jim
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Miles
>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:14 AM
>> To: Provenance Working Group WG
>> Subject: 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_Gener
>>      
>>> ation_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
>>      
>
>    

-- 
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
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 15:02:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT