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 17:01:03 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c2b02841a1e07e1557bf3ba23dfbb0a7n59H1908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DF23FBF.3090506@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I agree that usability of the model is crucial and we cannot ignore it.
I just wanted to postpone it, ... until the dust settles down.

Luc

On 06/10/2011 04:57 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> 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
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
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 16:01:39 GMT

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