Re: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]

For the record, this issue is now formally closed.
Luc

On 09/23/2011 12:18 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> The issue of scope is now explicitly discussed in the Account section 
> of the latest version of the document.
>
> We are closing this issue, pending review.
> Feel free to reopen if you have concerns.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> On 24/08/2011 21:56, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities 
>> with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/81
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Let us consider two entity assertions, inspired by those discussed in 
>> [1].
>>
>> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim 
>> Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])
>>
>> entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim 
>> Myers", reviewed={yes}])
>>
>>
>> Let us note that they have the same identifier but they have different
>> attributes.
>>
>>
>> What does it mean to have these two assertions occurring together in
>> the provenance of something?
>>
>>
>> 1. If they were asserted by the same asserter, I would argue this is
>>     not well formed provenance. Again, having a scoping construct is
>>     useful, and we could introduce the following constraint:
>>
>>     Within an account, two entity assertions with the same identifier
>>     must have the same attribute-value pairs.
>>
>> 2. Let us now imagine that the two assertions were created in separate
>>     accounts (alice's and bob's), but now, we decide to "merge" all 
>> assertions
>>     together.
>>
>>    2.1.  The identifier had a scope that was local to the account in 
>> which it occurs.
>>
>>          Then it's OK again, in a sense, since we could apply an
>>          alpha-conversion, renaming consistently the identifier in its
>>          account before merging, so as to avoid a clash.  The two
>>          entities would be regarded as different, because having
>>          different attributes (they just happened to have the same
>>          identifier in their respective scope).
>>
>>    2.2 The identifier has a global scope. Then again, the same
>>    constraint as above should apply (replacing account by global
>>    scope).
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0326.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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, 30 November 2011 11:53:11 UTC