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: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:01:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKc1nHctViUoRRg9y7wOjP4_u4JmpKkQ6VGPJkO1V-fcV9O_-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

> I don't see why wasEventuallyDericedFrom can't be transitive?

Do you mean an instance or in general? If you mean in general, then
for example, the webpage in the example was derived from the sketch,
which was a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. The sketch then was
derived from the pencil. But the webpage was not derived from the
pencil, as it would have been the same if the sketch was written in
pen.

> It's also unclear how you decide between wasEventuallyDericed and dependendOn?

I'm not sure the kind of decision procedure you're looking for, but I
might go for:

A wasEventuallyDerivedFrom B if B being different would have meant A
was different.
If B was used in a process that generated an entity, C, and A
wasEventuallyDerivedFrom C or A dependedOn C, then A dependedOn B.

Thanks,
Simon

> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 9 Nov 2011, at 20:06, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you think that we need a non-transitive relation wasEventuallyDerivedFrom, can you explain why?
>
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 21:02:23 UTC

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