- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:45:09 -0500
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
prov-wg, Where did this fall? When would be a good time to review this section of the latest DM? Thanks, Tim On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Simon Miles wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 19:45:36 UTC