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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:19:14 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|100de6a8f69f4ae90acf6dc85ba268c0o0ANJK08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F0E18F2.7000805@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Satya. Yes, please raise a separate issue for derivation.
Luc

On 11/01/12 23:09, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     > University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     > Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
>     l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:20:03 UTC

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