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

Re: Scruffy vs proper

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:07:02 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-Id: <73CD223B-462E-4BBE-B54C-377CEE09A866@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> 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.

+1

-Tim

> 
> #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 Sunday, 4 March 2012 01:07:48 GMT

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