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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-179 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:58:04 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|28c649ff260883921c90db3e772c4afdo27LxN08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F592B6C.6030304@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

Given the new definition of derivation adopted today, we no longer have 
a prov:steps attribute.
So I propose to close this issue, if it's OK with you.

Luc

On 02/12/11 17:28, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-179 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/179
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> Imposing a "default" value for prov:steps will cause issues in PROV-O, which embraces the open world.
>
> > From [1]:
>
> "It is optional to include the attribute prov:steps in an imprecise-n derivation record. It defaults to prov:steps="n"."
>
>
> An OWL axiom such as "imprecise-n derivation records must have values of prov:step that are integers greater than 1" can be done, and if an instance of Derivation is typed to "imprecise-n derivation record", then one knows that it has more than one step -- even when no prov:step has been asserted.
>
>
> If this OWL approach is taken, would we be violating the DM's "It defaults to prov:steps="n"."?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation
>
>
>
>    
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 21:59:51 GMT

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