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: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:22:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKc1nHfbz+Vs+SiSDuYt1ki5epefALN5zD5E0EmS5ymCWehGQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc,

I'd be happy to support that proposal.

The definition of the transitive relation seems good. Name:
hasBackdrop, includesInHistory, hasPastLinkTo?

Yes, as you say, I think the only difference between wasDerivedFrom
and wasBasedOn is that the former is used where you wish to express
what activity the derivation was due to, while the latter implies
nothing about activities (and so may be due to many).

Thanks,
Simon

On 16 November 2011 14:52, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>



-- 
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 Wednesday, 16 November 2011 15:23:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:10 UTC