Re: prov-issue-11: what is version?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:14, Luc Moreau <> wrote:

> We could have an extra inference rule,
>  d2 is a revision of d1
>  c1 isDerivedFrom d1 (by specific transformation t)
>  c2 is derivedFrom d2 (by same specific transformation t)
> then c2 is a revision of c1

Hmm.. I think that shows that it's difficult to include the
transitivity of revisions to our definition. How do you know it's the
"same transformation"? They would most likely be two different process
executions. You venture into the land of describing the recipe for the
execution - and would need to distinguish purely transformational
processes (shims?) from processes which are note purely functional and
would not always give the same outputs.

I think we can keep your definition - by allowing the asserter to
specifically say A is a revision of B she can shortcut all these
tricky bits.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:29:35 UTC