Re: PROV-ISSUE-125: derivation-attributes constraint (PROV-DM and PROV-O) [Data Model]

Hi Satya,
Can you please confirm we can close this issue? (at least, for the dm part)
Best regards,

On 11/07/2011 12:51 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Satya,
> Responses interleaved.
> On 10/15/2011 11:48 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-125: derivation-attributes constraint (PROV-DM and PROV-O) 
>> [Data Model]
>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>> On product: Data Model
>> The following constraint (id=derivation-attributes) is defined for 
>> wasDerivedFrom Relation (in mercurial fpwd head PROV-DM document on 
>> Oct 15, 2011):
>> "Given a process execution expression denoted by pe, entity 
>> expressions denoted by e1 and e2, qualifiers q1 and q2, the assertion 
>> wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1) or wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) holds if and 
>> only if the values of some attributes of the entity expression 
>> identified by e2 are partly or fully determined by the values of some 
>> attributes of the entity expression identified by e1."
>> Issue:
>> a) This attribute-based constraint for wasDerivedFrom property can 
>> lead to ambiguous assertions of wasDerivedFrom between Entity instances.
>> Example scenario: The color attribute of an apple, kept in a 
>> refrigerator, "color = brown" is determined by the attribute of the 
>> refrigerator "temperature = -10C". Can we assert that "brown apple" 
>> wasDerivedFrom "refrigerator"?
>> We can argue that the "brown apple" dependedOn "refrigerator" with 
>> temperature setting of -10C, but not wasDerivedFrom
>> Suggestion: restate the above attribute-based constraint for 
>> "dependedOn" relation instead of "wasDerivedFrom"
> The WG agreed that this constraint should be dropped.
>> b) Since dependedOn is a weaker notion of wasDerivedFrom - we can 
>> assert in the PROV-O that dependedOn is a parent property (more 
>> generic version) of wasDerivedFrom
> That's a prov-o specific comment.
> You need to be careful about transitivity. One is, the other is not, i 
> believe.
>> c) Suggest renaming dependedOn to dependentOn
> It's nice to be able to keep the verbal form, similarly to the other 
> relations, with past explicit.
> I feel we can close this issue. Let me know if otherwise.
> Cheers,
> Luc

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 12:22:41 UTC