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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:41:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBBF095.9060507@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
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?


>> 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

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