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

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

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:57:32 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205286D73@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc,

I mention shortcuts only to make it clear that we can separate the
question of whether this model fits the needs a bit from whether we want
to see everything. A bit along the lines of the discussion we had in OPM
between the folks who just wanted to see data derivations - we ended up
with a model of data-process-data with direct data derivation originally
as a shorthand when you didn't want to discuss the process itself. (Not
an exact analogy since we ended up wanting to overload data derivation
to have a more logical/causal flavor versus just being a shorthand).

So - I'm willing to drop back from discussing shorthand notations as
long as we realize that some of the potential criticisms about whether
we think the model is too much work for witnesses or looks too complex
could be addressed by shorthand notations.

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'
> 
> 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_Gene
> >> r
> >>
> >>> 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 15:58:43 GMT

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