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

PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 02:21:12 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RY78C-0007OA-8n@tibor.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/199

Raised by: Satya Sahoo
On product: prov-dm

Hi,
The following are my comments for Section 6.2 of the PROV-DM (as on Dec 5):

Section 6.2
1. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,a,g2,u1) holds, for some a, g2, u1, then tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds." 

Comment: What information is lost if we verbatim replaced tracedTo with wasDerivedFrom in the above example?

2. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) holds, then tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds."

Comment: So, wasDerivedFrom and tracedTo as effectively interchangeable? If a domain-specific application can assert derivation to be transitive as described earlier in Section 5.3.3.2, then why is traceability required to be defined by the DM?

Thanks.

Best,
Satya
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 02:21:17 UTC

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