- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:41:09 +0000
- To: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 09/11/2011 21:01, Simon Miles wrote: > 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. Oooh... isn't this straying into the territory of might-be scenarios that provenance was intended to avoid? #g -- >> 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? >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 16:16:58 UTC