RE: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'

I think so. Trying to reiterate without changing what you say: 

I think you're saying I can report:

P1 used X
Y generatedby P1
X and Y IVPT's of 'egg'

Which I think is valid. I was suggesting the shorthand

'egg' participatedin P1

To express that. I.e. you don't have to create X and Y if they are completely undescribed/blank - probably could infer that they exist if you wanted to expand the graph. I think you could also add that statement to the first set to get a complete picture.

Another variant that might be useful

'egg' participated in P1
Y generated by P1
Y IVPT of 'egg'
Y hasTemperature 80 degrees F

Or the reverse with only X described.

 Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Miles
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:14 AM
> To: Provenance Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'
> 
> Jim,
> 
> > can't I say the egg was heated without reporting its cold and warm states? I.e.
> don't we want to be able to report that something was modified without having
> to report the IVPTs? A document was edited four times by different people but I
> don't wan't to/can't tell you what each wrote at each stage?
> 
> For the first of these, can't we just express it as the following?
>  1. X was generated by Heated which used Y (as per Luc's generated definition)
> 2. Egg is an abstraction of X and Y We do not have to say anything about X and Y
> other than Egg being their abstraction.
> 
> For the second, it would be:
>  1. Z was generated by Edited which used/was controlled by Simon, Jim, Luc and
> Khalid  2. My Document is an abstraction of Z
> 
> X, Y, Z, Egg, Simon, Jim, Luc, Khalid, and My Document are all IPVTs, as we treat
> them as invariant for the purpose of what we want to assert (i.e. from our
> perspective).
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> On 10 June 2011 02:31, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:
> > This would mean that a heating process modifies an egg to create a warm egg,
> it does not transform a cold egg into a warm egg?
> >
> > Or do you mean both - a process execution can turn one thing into another,
> these things can be considered IVPTs of a thing that participates in the process
> execution/ is modified by the process execution? And in an open world
> assumption, a witness doesn't have to report the modified thing or can decline
> to identify/report either of things in IVPT roles depending on their ability to
> observe and the use case they wish to enable?
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Luc Moreau
> > Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 6:44 PM
> > To: Provenance Working Group WG
> > Subject: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of'
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > - if a new thing is created, it is clear that we have a new IVPT of
> > that thing
> >
> > if a chicken creates an egg is it just an IVPT of an egg?
> >
> > - if the thing is modified, then it is a requirement that a new view (IVPT) is
> generated ...
> >       otherwise, it would still be a view that existed before
> >
> > can't I say the egg was heated without reporting its cold and warm states? I.e.
> don't we want to be able to report that something was modified without having
> to report the IVPTs? A document was edited four times by different people but I
> don't wan't to/can't tell you what each wrote at each stage?
> >
> > - if the process execution was taking a long time to modify/create the
> > thing, there is only one
> >   instant at which the (invariant!) IVPT appears
> >
> > I thnk we could define it that way, but if a cracking process takes time, saying
> the cracked egg appears instantaneously basically means you want 'cracked egg'
> to be defined by some threshold - the cracked egg might become more cracked
> over time ) invariant only in that it is always above the threshold and the
> instance of the creation of the IVPT relationship occurs ata  aspecific instant.
> >
> > - I think this captures well a stateful objects, where processes can
> > modify the object, resulting in
> >   different IVPTs corresponding to the various states
> >
> > IVPTs are not a separate kind of thing and their invariance is relative. If they
> are truly immutable sates/snapshopts, they can only exist for an instant because
> some part of the state of the thing (a part we may not care about such as age)
> will change immediately.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptGeneration#Definition_of_Gener
> > ation_by_Luc
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Luc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> _________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> _________
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dr Simon Miles
> Lecturer, Department of Informatics
> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
> +44 (0)20 7848 1166

Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 13:57:33 UTC