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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-126: Section "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." [Data Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:56:32 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e059d34efdb8387570bf70a0f2631620nA7Fua08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EB95130.8010909@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya,

Responses interleaved.  I propose to close the issue, let me know if it 
shouldn't be the case.
The recent proposal that was circulated will not use the heavyweight 
terminology pe-linked/pe-independent.

On 16/10/2011 01:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-126: Section "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." [Data Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/126
> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
> On product: Data Model
> Hi,
> This is a review comment for Section "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." in the PROV-DM document (in mercurial fpwd head on Oct 15, 2011).
> Issue: The current definition for "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." Section states that:
> "A process execution independent derivation expression is a representation of a derivation, which occurred by any means whether direct or not, and regardless of any activity in the world."
> a) Does the above definition mean that an Entity instance e1 can be derived from another Entity instance e2 without the existence of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" activities?
Ativities may or they may not exist.  We don't say anything about them, 
and we are not trying to link the derivation with any activity/activities.
> b)  If the above definition just means that there exists some PE linked to the derivation of e2 from e1, but a provenance application may not be aware of it, then how does it relate to the constraint "derivation-process-execution" defined for "Process Execution Linked Derivation Assertion" in Section

No, that's not the intent. If you know there is one PE, and you don't 
know about it, wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) is exactly capturing this notion.
> The current definition of "wasDerivedFrom" states that there was an activity of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" that links the two Entity instances, which is *summarized* by the wasDerivedFrom property. Hence, "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression" is not consistent with current definition of derivation.
wasDerivedFrom is pe-linked, and PE independent derivation are not 
PE-linked. Idont' think there is any inconsistency here.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 15:56:59 UTC

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