Re: prov-dm derivation: three proposals to vote on (deadline Wednesday midnight GMT)

Stian,

OK, that makes sense to me. I'd not thought about hadParticipant, but
I can see it gives the most general transitive weak semantics.

Thanks,
Simon

On 13 November 2011 14:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 13:42, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> The only thing that puzzled me was the use of 'dependedOn' in the
>> inference rules. Is this just a typo? I thought dependedOn was
>> replaced by wasBasedOn in your proposal? Or have I misunderstood
>> something here?
>
>
> I'm sorry, I confused myself.. I was thinking of hadParticipant()
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#expression-Participation
>
> to cover both use, control, and other influencing participation, in
> addition to covering wasComplementOf() relations.
>
>
> So to rephrase:
>
> wasBasedOn(A,B) is transitive and can be inferred iff:
>
> wasGeneratedBy(A, pe0)
> hadParticipant(pe0, B)
>
>  -or-
>
> wasGeneratedBy(A, pe0)
> hadParticipant(pe0, x)
> wasBasedOn(x, B)
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Provenance-based Validation of E-Science Experiments:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1268/

Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 18:03:58 UTC