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

Re: Scruffy vs proper

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:15:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4F3550B1.9000705@ninebynine.org>
To: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On 10/02/2012 15:00, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> Yes, they are fundamentally the same, I agree.
> But I was wondering if in order to make the document more simple we were
> going to
> provide just the scruffy view first and the "proper" view as something for
> more advanced readers.

Yes, I think that approach would be good.  With the proviso that the "proper" 
view doesn't invalidate the "scruffy" view, but rather builds upon and refines it.

#g
--

> Daniel
>
> 2012/2/10 Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org>
>
>> I think it's a mistake to think of "scruffy" and "proper" as different
>> kinds of provenance.  They are fundamentally the same.  Rather, if the
>> provenance is collected and managed under conditions that we might consider
>> "proper", then we can combine freely and use the additional inferences that
>> flow from those conditions.
>>
>> For provenance that is not collected and managed under these "proper"
>> conditions, then we may wish to consider something akin to Guha's "lifting
>> rules" [1] for extracting appropriately contextualized provenance
>> information that can be treated as "proper".
>>
>> In summary: scruffy vs proper isn't about the data model or the provenance
>> itself so much as its context of collection and use.  IMO.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>> [1] http://www-formal.stanford.**edu/guha/<http://www-formal.stanford.edu/guha/>
>>
>>
>> On 10/02/2012 14:11, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>
>>> 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<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>
>>>>> <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 17:16:24 GMT

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