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: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:55:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmRtEfNPnMTpZOpMUt6zoooOPYet2sGaUuQD=nXg4F8fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Sounds better, or even "single" and "unknown" - as the latter will also
include a single unknown activity. (otherwise, if we don't know the
activities, it would be hard to guarantee that it is minimum 2 steps)

However the activities might be known, and even asserted, but the account
wanted to indicate the derivation across multiple activities (as we don't
yet have the concept of subactivities).. so something similar to
"unknown".. "undefined"?
 On Dec 22, 2011 1:42 AM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
> Hi Stian,
> It's in prov-dm:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-steps
>
> Now, it it helps, we could use values 'single' and 'multiple' instead of 1
> and n (which
> for the purpose of prov-dm were regarded as strings).
>
> Luc
>
> On 22/12/11 06:19, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Friday, 23 December 2011 20:56:08 UTC

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