W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:29:19 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b6973e681e63c15035179513e1de2f84o31MUd08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F7A1A2F.6050107@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

With the release of the documents, we are proposing again to close
this issue pending review.

Feel free to reopen if WD5 does not address your concerns.
Regards,
Luc

On 11/07/11 12:22, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other  [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29
>
> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)&  (A IVPof B), and this is surely not intended.
>
> This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
> - A and B both represent the same entity
> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have corresponding values.
> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of A
> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B
>
> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) that real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may disallow
> "IPV of" in this situation.  However, unless that is guaranteed, I think that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a definition) should additionally require that:
> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B"
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>    
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 21:31:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT