- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:08:35 +0100
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 17:09:03 UTC
Hi Paolo, I don't think that we agreed within the working group that derivation is transitive. The point I was trying to make is that it would be good if we specify the characteristics of the relationships defined in the model. I may, wrongly, assumed that the transitivity of derivation is trivial. I guess we will at some point discuss this in one of the telecons. Thanks, khalid On 25/07/2011 12:29, Paolo Missier wrote: > Khalid > > I don't think we have ever agreed on that, but I should really check > the voting history. The latest definition of IVP-of (or complement-of) > is sufficiently precise (i.e., algorithmic) that transitivity follows, > but derivation is purely asserted and as such there is no ground to > say that it is transitive -- unless we say axiomatically that it > should be. > > -Paolo > >> PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/45 >> >> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame >> On product: Conceptual Model >> >> >> If we agree that "isDerivedFrom" and "IVPof" are transitive, then I would suggest that this should be specified in the model working draft. >> >> khalid >
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 17:09:03 UTC