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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:11:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DdO57yTvAUkAr9gutX8nKhvOWxtLpn6-5dgYJzOmiYwYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
I agree with Khalid too.
Small question: Is the new version of DM going to include both scruffy and
proper provenance,
or is it going to be separated in two different documents?

Thanks,
Daniel

2012/2/10 Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>

>
> +1
>
> I think this proposal will also simplify the model.
> The consequence of applying this proposal will also IMO remove some
> confusion, by avoiding talking about granularity of the activities involved
> in the derivation. In particular, what for one observer can be
>  imprecise-1, because s/he believes that the activity involved in the
> derivation is atomic, can be seen by another observer as imprecise-n,
> because s/he believes that the activity involved in the derivation is
> composite. Talking simply about precise and imprecise derivation allows us
> to avoid this issue.
>
> Khalid
>
>
> On 09/02/2012 23:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/249<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/249>
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> We currently have 3 derivations:
>>
>>
>> A precise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1,
>> attrs)
>> An imprecise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2,e1, t, attrs)
>> An imprecise-n derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, t, attrs)
>>
>>
>> Imprecise-1/imprecise-1 are distinguished with the attribute prov:steps.
>>
>> Why do we need 3 derivations?
>>
>> I believe that imprecise-n derivation is required for the 'scruffy
>> provenance' use case.
>>
>> I believe that precise-1 derivation is required for the 'proper
>> provenance' use case: in particular, it's a requirement for provenance
>> based reproducibility.
>>
>> I don't understand why we have imprecise-1.  Why can we just have
>> imprecise-n and precise-1?
>>
>> PS. If we go with this proposal, then they could simply be called
>> imprecise/precise, and we don't need the attribute steps.
>>
>> PS2. They would essentially be a unqualified and a qualified derivation
>> (in prov-o terminology).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 14:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT