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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-370 (tracedTo-inference-only): Should tracedTo be moved to prov-constraints and be defined as a binary relation that can be inferred [prov-dm]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:29:17 +0100
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C4BB28DB-B855-4F63-AF87-521832E502B6@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi,

Well, my comments (which I guess were not comprehensible) were meant to indicate support for keeping the treatment of tracedTo in the constraints simple.  One way of doing that would be to define it as a binary relation only, but several people made a case for keeping it as is.

If we just want to have syntax allow:

tracedTo(id;x,y,attrs)

then that's fine with me as long as it's OK for the constraints to ignore the id and attrs, as it currently does (I cannot see what inferences we would want that would use them).

If the effect of resolving this issue is to motivate further constraints / inferences on tracedTo beyond what is in the current constraints draft, then that should be a separate issue.

--James

On May 15, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I didn't see support for dropping tracedTo from prov-dm, or even making it binary.
> 
> Given this, I propose to close this issue, without any change to the specification.
> This means that tracedTo can be asserted.
> 
> James, this may have implications on the constraints document.
> 
> Regards,
> Luc
> 
> On 04/30/2012 12:02 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-370 (tracedTo-inference-only): Should tracedTo be moved to prov-constraints and be defined as a binary relation that can be inferred [prov-dm]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/370
>> 
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>> 
>> 
>> TracedTo was introduced in the data model so as to have a transitive relation over derivations, etc. It can be inferred. In contrast, its definition as an assertion was not very compelling. In the latest version of prov-constraints, it is only defined as something that can be inferred.
>> 
>> Really, it looks like a relation that is useful to express queries.
>> 
>> So, in the spirit of simplification, should we move it out of prov-dm, and have it defined in prov-constraints only.
>> 
>> At the same time, it could be simplified to a binary relation, since we have no way of inferring attributes for this relation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 16:30:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 16:30:10 GMT