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

Hi Satya,

On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 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?
>    

If I understand you correctly, this is what we have for 
'derivation-implications' constraint.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#derivation-implications

> 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?
>
>    

No, one implies the other, but not the converse. It's not equivalence.

Luc
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 10:40:46 UTC