- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:01:03 +0100
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I agree that usability of the model is crucial and we cannot ignore it. I just wanted to postpone it, ... until the dust settles down. Luc On 06/10/2011 04:57 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: > Luc, > > I mention shortcuts only to make it clear that we can separate the > question of whether this model fits the needs a bit from whether we want > to see everything. A bit along the lines of the discussion we had in OPM > between the folks who just wanted to see data derivations - we ended up > with a model of data-process-data with direct data derivation originally > as a shorthand when you didn't want to discuss the process itself. (Not > an exact analogy since we ended up wanting to overload data derivation > to have a more logical/causal flavor versus just being a shorthand). > > So - I'm willing to drop back from discussing shorthand notations as > long as we realize that some of the potential criticisms about whether > we think the model is too much work for witnesses or looks too complex > could be addressed by shorthand notations. > > Jim > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luc Moreau >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:02 AM >> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-8: defining generation in terms of `IVPT of' >> >> 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_Gene >> >>>> r >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> > -- 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 16:01:39 UTC