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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:06:07 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, 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>
Message-Id: <1F7DEE8F-1BE0-4B44-AE81-62D825641116@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>

On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> 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.

Well stated!

> 
> 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".

Yes, something like this is required to handle "scruffy" provenance.

> 
> 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.

+1

-Tim


> 
> #g
> --
> 
> [1] 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>
>> 
>>> 
>>> +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 Sunday, 4 March 2012 01:07:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT