Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]

Hi Graham,
This issue was closed, pending review.
Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we
close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it,
or create a more specific issue.
Thanks,
Luc

PS See note on this issue's page



On 29/07/11 10:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/56
>
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> [[ Given an assertion isDerivedFrom(B,A), one can infer that the use
> of characterized entity denoted by A precedes the generation of the
> characterized entity denoted by B.  ]]
> Where does this notion of "use" come from in the absence of some
> referenced activity?
>
> Concerning transitivity of derivation:
>
> Suppose:
> A has attributes a0, a1
> B having attributes b0, b1 is derived from A, with b0 being dependent on a0
> C having attributes c0, c1, is derived from B with c1 being dependent on b1
>
> So none of the attributes of C can be said to be directly or
> indirectly dependent on attributes of A, which by the given definition
> is a requirement for derivation of C from A.  Thus, as defined,
> derivation cannot be transitive.
>
> I don't really know if derivation should or should not be transitive,
> but the above seems to me like a problem of spurious
> over-specification.  My suggestion for now would be to focus on what
> really matters and see what logical properties fall out later.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:08:46 UTC