- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:25:25 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim and Satya, The derivation section has been entirely written, using a single relation wasDerivedFrom, and an optional attribute to identify its level of precision. The terminology issues you have raised no longer apply. Are you happy if we formally close this issue? Regards, Luc On 11/16/2011 05:24 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > -- 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 12:26:04 UTC