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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-136 (collection-functional): Collection not stated as functional [Data Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:49:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkopmz9cLT_FTLTNJG5t2Omz_1dgV_QgLyYbbU8h2eyCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
This issue is still open, as DM is currently almost contradicting
itself on functionality. I've marked this as an issue in [1]:


> One can have multiple assertions regarding the state of a collection following a set of insertions, for example:
CollectionAfterInsertion(c2,c1, k1, v1)
CollectionAfterInsertion(c2,c1, k2, v2)
...
This is interpreted as " c2 is the state that results from inserting
(k1, v1), (k2, v2) etc. into c1


> Both relations are functional, in the sense that they represent a state change following a unique insertion/removal operation (or a unique set of them). Thus, from the pair of assertions:
CollectionAfterInsertion(c, c1, k1, v1)
CollectionAfterInsertion(c, c2, k2, v2)
one can infer: c1==c2, k1==k2, v1==v2, because one cannot have two
different derivations for the same final collection state.


We have to decide on one of these. My feeling is that it should be
functional on all parameters, because otherwise the open-world
assumption means there could also be an unknown additional
insertions/deletions between c1 and c. (This touches on ISSUE-137
[2]).


However, this then leaves ISSUE-138 open for how to represent multiple
insertions/removal. See separate email about this.




[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-Collection
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/137
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/138



On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 00:18, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-136 (collection-functional): Collection not stated as functional [Data Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/136
>
> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> On product: Data Model
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#expression-Collection introduces relations for expressing collection addition by using three statements
>
>  wasAddedTo_Coll(c2,c1)
>  wasAddedTo_Key(c2,k1)
>  wasAddedTo_Entity(c2,e1)
>
> Saying that c2 is the content of c1 - but with e1 added under the key k1.
>
> It is not stated that the relations are functional - thus it would be valid to also say *for the same collection c2*:
>
>  wasAddedTo_Key(c2,k2)
>  wasAddedTo_Entity(c2,e2)
>
>
> But now assuming order of assertions in PROV-ASN don't matter - we don't know if it is (k2,e2) and (k1,e1) that was added, alternatively (k1,e2) and (k2,e1).
>
>
> My rough interpretation is that these assertions are meant to be functional - so that you can only add one key->entity at a time. If this is true, it should be stated in PROV-DM.
>
> If it is not - then a different way to associate the key to the value is needed, like a new "CollectionEntry" entity with attributes "key:,  "value" and possibly "collection".
>
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:49:59 GMT

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