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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:18:55 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1CDC03CE-0293-4CC8-889B-499C92F01636@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Absolutely. Thanks!

-Tim

On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> 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 Friday, 9 March 2012 04:19:26 GMT

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