- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:02:11 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim, Is it necessary to talk about shorthands at this stage? It's important to note what we want to express in a abbreviated manner, (e.g. author, etc), but looking at shortcuts now seems to complicate our defining concepts. I would suggest we have a stab at definitions, and then, apply them to examples, and see where abbreviations would be desirable. Cheers, Luc On 06/10/2011 02:56 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: > 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 >> > > -- 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, 10 June 2011 15:02:41 UTC