- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:24:14 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Satya, > > Responses interleaved. I propose to close the issue, let me know if it shouldn't be the case. > The recent proposal that was circulated will not use the heavyweight terminology pe-linked/pe-independent. It was difficult for me to grasp the "pe-linked" naming scheme in the DM, so I'm glad that it is being replaced. What is the new terminology? "Activity Linked" ? I think this is more natural and like the change. The anchors still reflect the old terminology. e.g. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#pe-linked-derivationRecord so does the ASN: pe-linked-derivationRecord:= wasDerivedFrom ( identifier , identifier [, identifier , generationAttributeValues , useAttributesValues] ) Thanks, Tim > > > On 16/10/2011 01:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-126: Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." [Data Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/126 >> >> Raised by: Satya Sahoo >> On product: Data Model >> >> Hi, >> This is a review comment for Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." in the PROV-DM document (in mercurial fpwd head on Oct 15, 2011). >> >> Issue: The current definition for "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." Section 5.3.3.2 states that: >> "A process execution independent derivation expression is a representation of a derivation, which occurred by any means whether direct or not, and regardless of any activity in the world." >> >> a) Does the above definition mean that an Entity instance e1 can be derived from another Entity instance e2 without the existence of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" activities? >> > Ativities may or they may not exist. We don't say anything about them, and we are not trying to link the derivation with any activity/activities. >> b) If the above definition just means that there exists some PE linked to the derivation of e2 from e1, but a provenance application may not be aware of it, then how does it relate to the constraint "derivation-process-execution" defined for "Process Execution Linked Derivation Assertion" in Section 5.3.3.1? >> >> > > No, that's not the intent. If you know there is one PE, and you don't know about it, wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) is exactly capturing this notion. >> The current definition of "wasDerivedFrom" states that there was an activity of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" that links the two Entity instances, which is *summarized* by the wasDerivedFrom property. Hence, "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression" is not consistent with current definition of derivation. >> >> >> >> > wasDerivedFrom is pe-linked, and PE independent derivation are not PE-linked. Idont' think there is any inconsistency here. > > Luc > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 17:24:44 UTC