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: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:49:27 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|9926eac419e6af3f7315c5b15b13a30dnA9DnY08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EBBD667.6000805@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon,

Still trying to understand what you wrote.
Paraphrasing your example,

  Someone asserts that a collection C2 is derived from collection C1 by 
removing e from C1
  You claim that C2 is not necessarily derived from e,
  do you claim that C2 is never derived from e,

Is it a correct analogy?  which claim are you making?


On 10/11/2011 10:46, Simon Miles wrote:
> In my example, the designer may assert that the first draft page was
> derived from the banner image ("DRAFT") that it contains, while the
> publisher may assert that the published page (excluding the banner)
> was derived from the first draft. But the published page is not
> derived from the banner image, because it would not make any
> difference should the banner have been different, or even not been
> present at all, e.g. the first draft could still have existed even if
> the banner had been deleted earlier. To allow a transitive
> derivation-like relation to exist, it must have semantics so weak as
> to allow the published page to be linked to the banner. I understood
> this weakened relation to be dependedOn. This relation does not remove
> the need for an actual derivation relation to be expressed. I don't
> have a strong opinion on whether a transitive relation needs to exist.
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 13:50:05 UTC

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