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

Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:30:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4F5681F5.5090609@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 06/03/2012 13:41, Paul Groth wrote:
> 2) There is a proposal on derivation to resolve ISSUE-249. Please see
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html

In its present form, I can't be sure what it's trying to say, so I'd have to 
vote against.

The ASN template and the description of terms do not match up.

I don't understand "identifier for the generation involving the generated entity 
and activity"

I don't understand " identifier for the usage involving the used entity and 
activity"

Assuming section 1 is intended to go in DM part 1, then I think the paragraphj 
about transitivity is out of place.

Why do we need anything other than:

     wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, [attr])

?

At heart, generation is about two entities and an activity, so the full gamut of 
possibilities can be captured by

   wasGeneratedBy
   used

statements

Thus the wasDerivedFrom is available as a convenience property to describe the 
derivation when further information about the activity is not available.

Note that I've deliberately ignored the multiple-stage derivation case.  When 
the derivation passes through a chain of activities, one could, if needed, 
introduce a new activity that is the composition of the sequence involved in the 
derivation.  In practice, I don't see that this arises in the simple cases.

In summary, I propose: simplify!

#g
--
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 21:48:22 GMT

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