- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:16:07 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hi Luc, On 01/08/2011 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Khalid, > It's the other way round. > > isDerivedFrom indicates only one process execution was involved. > I was making the assumption that isDerivedFrom is transitive. Khalid > isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps indicates that we don't know how many > were involved. > > Luc > > > > On 07/30/2011 09:04 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >> >> >> I agree with you Simon. Probably, the only piece of information that >> one would get from differentiating between the two, is that: >> 1- isDerivedFrom(e1,e0): we don't know how many process executions >> have been enacted to generate e1 from e0. >> 2- isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0): we know that multiple process >> executions that were enacted to generate e1 from e0. (Although the >> text need to be changed to reflect this as explained below) >> >> If the objective from differentiating between the two is as explained >> above, then I would suggest to change the text in Section 5.5.2 as >> follows: >> >> "... this specification introduces a further assertion >> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *one* or >> more process executions." >> >> to >> >> "... this specification introduces a further assertion >> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *two* or >> more process executions." >> >> >> Thanks, khalid >> >> >> On 29/07/2011 17:52, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what >>> is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/67 >>> >>> Raised by: Simon Miles >>> On product: Conceptual Model >>> >>> By the definition, "a process execution represents an identifiable >>> activity". This does not seem to preclude one process execution >>> assertion denoting, at a coarse granularity, the same events in the >>> world denoted by multiple process executions in other assertions. >>> >>> If so, then in the File Scenario example, I could add a >>> coarse-grained process execution representing the whole e1-to-e5 >>> activity: >>> processExecution(pe5,collaboratively-edit,t) >>> uses(pe5,e1,in) >>> isGeneratedBy(e5,pe5,out) >>> >>> But then Section 5.5.2 distinguishes between "a single process >>> execution" and "one or more process executions". Following the >>> argument above, these could represent exactly the same occurrences >>> in the world. >>> >>> So there is no difference between what is denoted by one and >>> multiple process executions, and so no difference between >>> isDerivedFrom and isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps as described. Whether >>> e5 was derived from e1 appears to me to be entirely independent of >>> how many process executions were involved. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 17:16:30 UTC