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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-126: Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." [Data Model]

From: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:09:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOMwk6wtTZC2M0_GhP+D7cpB6kLH7cg6HdkK=Rq0khq7HNF=nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc,
I am comfortable with closing this issue. There are other issues that need
to be clarified regarding the 1 and n-step derivation - I will try to raise
them separately.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> I think the current treatment in the latest DM draft addresses the
> concerns I raised here.
>
> I am happy to have it closed, but am leaving it open for Satya to close.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim and Satya,
> >
> > The derivation section has been entirely written, using a single
> relation wasDerivedFrom,
> > and an optional attribute to identify its level of precision.
> >
> > The terminology issues you have raised no longer apply.
> >
> > Are you happy if we formally close this issue?
> > Regards,
> > Luc
> >
> > On 11/16/2011 05:24 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> >> On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Satya,
> >>>
> >>> Responses interleaved.  I propose to close the issue, let me know if
> it shouldn't be the case.
> >>> The recent proposal that was circulated will not use the heavyweight
> terminology pe-linked/pe-independent.
> >>>
> >> It was difficult for me to grasp the "pe-linked" naming scheme in the
> DM, so I'm glad that it is being replaced.
> >>
> >> What is the new terminology? "Activity Linked" ? I think this is more
> natural and like the change.
> >>
> >> The anchors still reflect the old terminology.
> >> e.g.
> >>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#pe-linked-derivationRecord
> >>
> >> so does the ASN:
> >>
> >> pe-linked-derivationRecord:= wasDerivedFrom ( identifier , identifier
> [, identifier , generationAttributeValues , useAttributesValues] )
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 16/10/2011 01:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-126: Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent
> Derivation Expression." [Data Model]
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/126
> >>>>
> >>>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> >>>> On product: Data Model
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> This is a review comment for Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution
> Independent Derivation Expression." in the PROV-DM document (in mercurial
> fpwd head on Oct 15, 2011).
> >>>>
> >>>> Issue: The current definition for "Process Execution Independent
> Derivation Expression." Section 5.3.3.2 states that:
> >>>> "A process execution independent derivation expression is a
> representation of a derivation, which occurred by any means whether direct
> or not, and regardless of any activity in the world."
> >>>>
> >>>> a) Does the above definition mean that an Entity instance e1 can be
> derived from another Entity instance e2 without the existence of
> "transformed from, created from, or affected by" activities?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Ativities may or they may not exist.  We don't say anything about
> them, and we are not trying to link the derivation with any
> activity/activities.
> >>>
> >>>> b)  If the above definition just means that there exists some PE
> linked to the derivation of e2 from e1, but a provenance application may
> not be aware of it, then how does it relate to the constraint
> "derivation-process-execution" defined for "Process Execution Linked
> Derivation Assertion" in Section 5.3.3.1?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> No, that's not the intent. If you know there is one PE, and you don't
> know about it, wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) is exactly capturing this notion.
> >>>
> >>>> The current definition of "wasDerivedFrom" states that there was an
> activity of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" that links the
> two Entity instances, which is *summarized* by the wasDerivedFrom property.
> Hence, "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression" is not
> consistent with current definition of derivation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> wasDerivedFrom is pe-linked, and PE independent derivation are not
> PE-linked. Idont' think there is any inconsistency here.
> >>>
> >>> Luc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Professor Luc Moreau
> > Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> > University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> > Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:10:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC