prov-dm derivation: three proposals to vote on (deadline Wednesday midnight GMT)

Dear all,

Can you express your support or not for the following proposals. We will 
confirm
the outcome at the teleconference.

Best regards,
Luc


In the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following
proposal about derivations in prov-dm.

Context: prov-dm currently contains 3 different notions of
derivations, in particular with names that are not intuitive.  The
constraint derivation-attributes [1] prevented derivations to be
transitive. These constraints were removed from the prov-dm document
last week [2].



Proposal 1. Transitive derivation is expressed using 'dependedUpon'
             between two entities.  dependedUpon can be asserted or 
inferred.

Proposal 2.  There exists a special case of derivation, where a
              process execution is known or known to exist.  This is 
expressed using:
              wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[pe, ...])  and its compact form
              wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1).

              Furthermore, there exists an inference:
              wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[pe, ...]) implies dependedUpon(e2,e1).

Proposal 3.  In the current version of the document, 
wasEventuallyDerivedFrom and dependedOn intended to
               express the same notion of (transitive) derivation, and 
thus can be
               removed as redundant.



Instead of 3 relations wasDerivedFrom, wasEventuallyDerivedFrom, and
dependedOn, we would now only have 2 relations wasDerivedFrom and
dependedUpon. The awkward term 'wasEventuallyDerivedFrom' is also
abandonned.  Overall, this should contribute towards a simplification
of the model.


Note: the text will describe the conditions under which the binary
form of wasDerivedFrom is transitive.




[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#derivation-attributes
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-03#resolution_5