W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-125: derivation-attributes constraint (PROV-DM and PROV-O) [Data Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:51:08 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9a51fc335b44db37534b6d4a551cd247nA6CpA08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB7D43C.5070003@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

Responses interleaved.

On 10/15/2011 11:48 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-125: derivation-attributes constraint (PROV-DM and PROV-O) [Data Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/125
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: Data Model
> The following constraint (id=derivation-attributes) is defined for wasDerivedFrom Relation (in mercurial fpwd head PROV-DM document on Oct 15, 2011):
> "Given a process execution expression denoted by pe, entity expressions denoted by e1 and e2, qualifiers q1 and q2, the assertion wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1) or wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) holds if and only if the values of some attributes of the entity expression identified by e2 are partly or fully determined by the values of some attributes of the entity expression identified by e1."
> Issue:
> a) This attribute-based constraint for wasDerivedFrom property can lead to ambiguous assertions of wasDerivedFrom between Entity instances.
> Example scenario: The color attribute of an apple, kept in a refrigerator, "color = brown" is determined by the attribute of the refrigerator "temperature = -10C". Can we assert that "brown apple" wasDerivedFrom "refrigerator"?
> We can argue that the "brown apple" dependedOn "refrigerator" with temperature setting of -10C, but not wasDerivedFrom
> Suggestion: restate the above attribute-based constraint for "dependedOn" relation instead of "wasDerivedFrom"

The WG agreed that this constraint should be dropped.

> b) Since dependedOn is a weaker notion of wasDerivedFrom - we can assert in the PROV-O that dependedOn is a parent property (more generic version) of wasDerivedFrom

That's a prov-o specific comment.
You need to be careful about transitivity. One is, the other is not, i 

> c) Suggest renaming dependedOn to dependentOn
It's nice to be able to keep the verbal form, similarly to the other 
relations, with past explicit.

I feel we can close this issue. Let me know if otherwise.


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 Monday, 7 November 2011 12:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC