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: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:51:25 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c56773d6a135f16a79087df7872e3f7cnAFEpY08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EC3CDED.1090101@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon and Stian,

In light of this discussion, I feel we could come to the following 
proposals.

1.  Subsection on derivation would define two relations only.
    wasDerivedFrom: linked to 1 activity only
    wasBasedOn (used to be called wasEventuallyDerivedFrom):  linked to 
unspecified number of activities

     wasDerivedFrom is a special case of wasBasedOn in the following sense:
     wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) implies wasBasedOn(e2,e1)


     Both wasDerivedFrom and wasBasedOn are non-transitive.
     Indeed, we can find examples where transitivity does not make sense.

2. A new section introducing a transitive relation
     computed as a transitive closure over:
         wasControlledBy
         wasComplementOf
         wasBasedOn
     Not sure what its names, but should capture the idea of being in 
the history of the subject.

What do you think?

Simon, wasBasedOn/wasEventuallyDerivedFrom: is it right to say that the 
only difference between
wasBasedOn and wasDerivedFrom is that the latter is associated to one 
and only one activity, while
the former may be associate to many (and their number may be unknown).

Luc


On 11/13/2011 06:03 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
> 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
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 14:52:12 UTC

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