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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:18:38 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c0e3d6670386204eae888ff1f5732ba4n8MCJH08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E7C6B0E.3010900@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

The issue of scope is now explicitly discussed in the Account section of 
the latest version of the document.

We are closing this issue, pending review.
Feel free to reopen if you have concerns.

Cheers,
Luc

On 24/08/2011 21:56, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/81
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
>
>
> Let us consider two entity assertions, inspired by those discussed in [1].
>
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
>
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", reviewed={yes}])
>
>
> Let us note that they have the same identifier but they have different
> attributes.
>
>
> What does it mean to have these two assertions occurring together in
> the provenance of something?
>
>
> 1. If they were asserted by the same asserter, I would argue this is
>     not well formed provenance. Again, having a scoping construct is
>     useful, and we could introduce the following constraint:
>
>     Within an account, two entity assertions with the same identifier
>     must have the same attribute-value pairs.
>
> 2. Let us now imagine that the two assertions were created in separate
>     accounts (alice's and bob's), but now, we decide to "merge" all assertions
>     together.
>
>    2.1.  The identifier had a scope that was local to the account in which it occurs.
>
>          Then it's OK again, in a sense, since we could apply an
>          alpha-conversion, renaming consistently the identifier in its
>          account before merging, so as to avoid a clash.  The two
>          entities would be regarded as different, because having
>          different attributes (they just happened to have the same
>          identifier in their respective scope).
>
>    2.2 The identifier has a global scope. Then again, the same
>    constraint as above should apply (replacing account by global
>    scope).
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0326.html
>
>
>
>
>    
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 11:19:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT