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

Fwd: prov-dm derivation: three proposals to vote on (deadline Wednesday midnight GMT)

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:26:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0DfnWgb56Tya_MV8fLbpD3Nwf7R4YJB=iE=ufL1JCHPGiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
+1 For proposal 1, *?* for proposal 2 and +1 for proposal 3.

I'm a bit confused by proposal 2. I don't see what is special in that type
of derivation
that currently doesn't exist in the model. Could you please give more
details, please?

Also, I thought that the inference was that if dependedUpon(e2,e1) holds,
then implies wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1).

According to what is proposed, if we have wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1),
wasDerivedFrom(e1,e0) (but e2 not being
derived from e0, because it is not transitive), it would imply:
dependedUpon(e2,e1), dependedUpon(e1,e0). Since
dependedUpon is transitive, we would also inferr dependedUpon(e2,e0), and
that would be wrong.

Thanks,
Daniel


2011/11/7 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> Dear all,
>
> Can you express your support or not for the following proposals. We will
> confirm
> the outcome at the teleconference.
>
> Best regards,
> Luc
>
>
> In the interest of simplification, we would like to make the following
> proposal about derivations in prov-dm.
>
> Context: prov-dm currently contains 3 different notions of
> derivations, in particular with names that are not intuitive.  The
> constraint derivation-attributes [1] prevented derivations to be
> transitive. These constraints were removed from the prov-dm document
> last week [2].
>
>
>
> Proposal 1. Transitive derivation is expressed using 'dependedUpon'
>            between two entities.  dependedUpon can be asserted or inferred.
>
> Proposal 2.  There exists a special case of derivation, where a
>             process execution is known or known to exist.  This is
> expressed using:
>             wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[pe, ...])  and its compact form
>             wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1).
>
>             Furthermore, there exists an inference:
>             wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,[pe, ...]) implies dependedUpon(e2,e1).
>
> Proposal 3.  In the current version of the document,
> wasEventuallyDerivedFrom and dependedOn intended to
>              express the same notion of (transitive) derivation, and thus
> can be
>              removed as redundant.
>
>
>
> Instead of 3 relations wasDerivedFrom, wasEventuallyDerivedFrom, and
> dependedOn, we would now only have 2 relations wasDerivedFrom and
> dependedUpon. The awkward term 'wasEventuallyDerivedFrom' is also
> abandonned.  Overall, this should contribute towards a simplification
> of the model.
>
>
> Note: the text will describe the conditions under which the binary
> form of wasDerivedFrom is transitive.
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-**prov-dm-20111018/#derivation-**
> attributes<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/#derivation-attributes>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**meeting/2011-11-03#resolution_**5<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-03#resolution_5>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 10:27:02 UTC

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