- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:52:09 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0Ddb81Zm41tEmBzmpaFJT7Wu55kRNrS-R_25vd91sxWNaw@mail.gmail.com>
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