W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-156 (TLebo): information flow ordering record - no temporal constraints? [Data Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:25:08 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5C03C517-43D8-4223-B7B3-BFEA552FA80F@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
(reposting to list so that the tracker finds it - I updated the diagram and phrasing, too.)

Luc,

Thank you for adding the time constraint. I illustrated it with a red line in the diagram below.

I'm curious if another constraint should be added.

Nothing is stating that the usage event must follow the generation event.

Regards,
Tim






http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/f8c191710aad/diagrams/activity-ordering-records-information-flow-ordering.png




On Nov 30, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> The latest WD contains wasInformedBy-ordering listing the temporal constraint
> associated with wasInformedBy.
> 
> I am proposing to close the issue pending review.
> Regards,
> Luc
> 
> On 11/21/2011 04:07 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>> You're right, a temporal interpretation constraint is missing.
>> I have added an explicit issue in the text. Hopefully, I will add it
>> later this week.
>> Luc
>> 
>> On 11/21/2011 03:06 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>   
>>> PROV-ISSUE-156 (TLebo): information flow ordering record - no temporal constraints? [Data Model]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/156
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: Data Model
>>> 
>>> According to 6.3 Activity Ordering Record
>>> 
>>> "wasInformedBy" is:
>>> 
>>> "An information flow ordering record is a representation that an entity was generated by an activity, before it was used by another activity."
>>> 
>>> But the only constraint does not include the temporal aspects described above:
>>> 
>>> "Given two activity records identified by a1 and a2, the record wasInformedBy(a2,a1) holds, if and only if there is an entity record identified by e and sets of attribute-value pairs attrs1 and attrs2, such that wasGeneratedBy(e,a1,attrs1) and used(a2,e,attrs2) hold."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Does the temporal constraint fall out of constraints that apply to wasGeneratedBy and used?
>>> * If so, could this be made explicit?
>>> * If not, can "attrs1" and "attrs2" be elaborated to include the "time used" and "time generated" AND their constrained ordering?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>   
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> 


PastedGraphic-2.tiff
(image/tiff attachment: PastedGraphic-2.tiff)

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC