Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity?

Luc -

You mention "you may want to replay the execution...".  Question (and I hope I'm 
not missing this conversation on a different thread) -

Is Process Execution always lossless and linear in time? In other words, is 
replay always possible? (for example, can image compression be a process 
execution since the compression may be lossy?)  Either way, I think this is 
important to articulate since it'll have ramifications on how inference engines 
decide whether it's possible to "replay" and if the "replay" is exact or 
approximate.

Hope the question is not nonsensical.

On 8/4/11 4:16 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Paulo,
>
> Using the notation we have introduced in the provenance model, this is writen
>
>
> uses(pe, a, r_a)
> uses(pe, b, r_b)
> isGeneratedBy(c,pe,r_c)
> isDerivedFrom(c,a)
>
> where a,b,c are entities, pe a process execution and r_a, r_b, r_c roles.
>
> To try and answer your questions:
> - if something is wrong about c, you may want to inspect pe, and hopefully
>    there are assertions about pe (not in this excerpt) which may be useful
>
> - you may want to replay the execution, and so having a and b, and knowing which
>    process definition underping pe, may help you verify the result.
>
> - I assume you mean can we infer that c was derived by the process execution
>
>    Yes, this is explained in the document, and further refine in the 
> soon-to-be-released new version.
>     Only one pe can generate c (in one account).
>     And from a derivation from c to a, one can infer the existence of a pe 
> which generated c and  used a.
>
> I hope it helps,
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> On 07/07/11 15:50, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the 
>> provenance of a given entity?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/26
>>
>> Raised by: Paulo Pinheiro da Silva
>> On product:
>>
>> Context:
>> 1. P uses A
>> 2. P uses B
>> 3. P generates C
>> 4. C derived from A
>>
>> If the provenance of C is the concern of a user of C (as opposed to the 
>> provenance of a process that generates C), one may have the following questions:
>>
>> 1) What the “uses” and “generates” relationships are adding to one’s 
>> understanding of C if something is wrong with C?
>> 2) Can we infer that A was derived by the execution of process P? How?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 23:41:02 UTC