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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:14:42 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|942ec885d4ec933e2098d945d4720340o4YBEi08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FC5F312.1070404@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi
Like ISSUE-223, this issue is now closed.
Regards,
Luc

On 04/11/2012 06:23 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It looks like, given the recent emails on this topic, we are again 
> unable to
> close this issue.
>
> Paul and I are very clear that the F2F2 resolution [1] should be 
> applied here.
>
> We are therefore setting a deadline to gain some consensus on this issue.
> As chairs, we would like to see a revised text [section 4.4, [2]] by 
> Wednesday 18th,
> on which we can take a vote.
>
> Tomorrow, at the teleconference, I will be looking for someone to lead 
> the
> editing of this section.
>
> Regards,
> Luc
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-02#resolution_1
> [2] 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component4
>
> On 02/04/2012 22:29, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> With the release of the documents, we are proposing again to close
>> this issue pending review.
>>
>> Feel free to reopen if WD5 does not address your concerns.
>> Regards,
>> Luc
>>
>> On 11/07/11 12:22, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" 
>>> each other  [Conceptual Model]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29
>>>
>>> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>
>>>
>>> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the 
>>> possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
>>> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)&  (A IVPof B), 
>>> and this is surely not intended.
>>>
>>> This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
>>> - A and B both represent the same entity
>>> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have 
>>> corresponding values.
>>> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable 
>>> properties of A
>>> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable 
>>> properties of B
>>>
>>> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) 
>>> that real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may 
>>> disallow
>>> "IPV of" in this situation.  However, unless that is guaranteed, I 
>>> think that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a 
>>> definition) should additionally require that:
>>> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable 
>>> properties of B"
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
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
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:15:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:15:17 GMT