RE: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]

I guess I would assume an open world and as long as the attributes don't conflict, I'd just assume that all the attributes discussed in separate statements are simultaneously set. If different values are asserted for the same attribute, it's an error. If attributes conflict directly or with the provenance (thinking of something like a claim that the content string is fixed in one account and the other claims there are complements of the entity with two different content strings), then it's an error. Etc.

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:56 PM
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities
> with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]
> 
> 
> PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with
> same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/81

> 
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Conceptual Model
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us consider two entity assertions, inspired by those discussed in [1].
> 
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim
> Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
> 
> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim
> Myers", reviewed={yes}])
> 
> 
> Let us note that they have the same identifier but they have different
> attributes.
> 
> 
> What does it mean to have these two assertions occurring together in the
> provenance of something?
> 
> 
> 1. If they were asserted by the same asserter, I would argue this is
>    not well formed provenance. Again, having a scoping construct is
>    useful, and we could introduce the following constraint:
> 
>    Within an account, two entity assertions with the same identifier
>    must have the same attribute-value pairs.
> 
> 2. Let us now imagine that the two assertions were created in separate
>    accounts (alice's and bob's), but now, we decide to "merge" all assertions
>    together.
> 
>   2.1.  The identifier had a scope that was local to the account in which it
> occurs.
> 
>         Then it's OK again, in a sense, since we could apply an
>         alpha-conversion, renaming consistently the identifier in its
>         account before merging, so as to avoid a clash.  The two
>         entities would be regarded as different, because having
>         different attributes (they just happened to have the same
>         identifier in their respective scope).
> 
>   2.2 The identifier has a global scope. Then again, the same
>   constraint as above should apply (replacing account by global
>   scope).
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0326.html

> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 13:14:29 UTC