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

Hi Stian,
Agreed with you that "same" transformation is going to be difficult
to establish in the general case.

I was not suggesting that such inference be included in the
definition, but it's something that we may want to investigate
in the future.

On 06/29/2011 11:28 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 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.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 11:17:58 UTC