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

Re: 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 11:52:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAExK0Ddb81Zm41tEmBzmpaFJT7Wu55kRNrS-R_25vd91sxWNaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
ok,
then, +1 for proposal 2 too.

Thanks,
Daniel

2011/11/8 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> **
> Hi Daniel,
> Just realised I missed part of your message.
>
> No, wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) implies dependedUpon(e2,e1). Not the converse,
> since dependedUpon makes no assumption about activities, whereas
> wasDerivedFrom does.
>
> So, in your example, you can indeed infer dependedUpon(e2,e0), but it does
> not mean
> that wasDerivedFrom(e2,e0).
>
> I hope it clarifies this issue. In fact, from that point of view, nothing
> has changed compared to the
> current document.
> Cheers,
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 11/08/2011 10:24 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
> +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
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-03#resolution_5
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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 Tuesday, 8 November 2011 10:52:51 UTC

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