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: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|080a8a3f76c3dbd92287f07cbf8d85beo3A6PB08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F851569.5040908@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

It looks like, given the recent emails on this topic, we are again unable to
close this issue.

Paul and I are very clear that the F2F2 resolution [1] should be applied 
here.

We are therefore setting a deadline to gain some consensus on this issue.
As chairs, we would like to see a revised text [section 4.4, [2]] by 
Wednesday 18th,
on which we can take a vote.

Tomorrow, at the teleconference, I will be looking for someone to lead the
editing of this section.

Regards,
Luc


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-02#resolution_1
[2] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component4

On 02/04/2012 22:29, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 11 April 2012 05:25:38 GMT

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