- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:22:01 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya, Can you please confirm we can close this issue? (at least, for the dm part) Best regards, Luc 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] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/125 >> >> 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: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 12:22:41 UTC