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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-126: Section 5.3.3.2 "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 5.3.3.2 "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 5.3.3.2 "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 5.3.3.2 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 5.3.3.1?
>
>    

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.

Luc
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