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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:19:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkBFerpni_Y94SBX5p4iuLMDVZxr5xudNmB1Qhc4ikRcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
it is a PROV-DM issue because it us not clear if the default applies to
PROV-ASN or PROV-DM. From your statement in the below email it sounds like
ASN, from text DM.

I personally find this attribute very confusing. It hints that steps=3
would be allowed, but only. values 1 and n are described. If this is really
a boolean meaning "known to be single step" then I would think of something
along those lines instead of pretending it is an integer.

(Note that we are also used to interpret n in x=n-1 as "insert your count
here")
On Dec 20, 2011 10:45 AM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> How do you map prov:steps to prov-o?  Your mapping could require this
> property
> to be mandatory, and not rely on a default value.
>
> Is this really a prov-dm issue?
>
> Best regards,
> Luc
>
> On 12/02/2011 07:28 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>> PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O
>> [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/180<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/180>
>>
>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> Imposing a "default" value for prov:steps will cause issues in PROV-O,
>> which embraces the open world.
>>
>> > From [1]:
>>
>> "It is optional to include the attribute prov:steps in an imprecise-n
>> derivation record. It defaults to prov:steps="n"."
>>
>>
>> An OWL axiom such as "imprecise-n derivation records must have values of
>> prov:step that are integers greater than 1" can be done, and if an instance
>> of Derivation is typed to "imprecise-n derivation record", then one knows
>> that it has more than one step -- even when no prov:step has been asserted.
>>
>>
>> If this OWL approach is taken, would we be violating the DM's "It
>> defaults to prov:steps="n"."?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/tip/model/**
>> ProvenanceModel.html#**Derivation-Relation<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 06:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC