- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:42:41 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
All, This issue is now closed. Luc On 03/08/2012 10:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > > I propose to close this issue, since we have agreed today that the > three forms > of derivation should be replaced by a single one. > Any other concern about derivations should be raised against the > document. > > Cheers, > Luc > > On 09/02/12 23:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? >> [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/249 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: prov-dm >> >> We currently have 3 derivations: >> >> >> A precise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, >> attrs) >> An imprecise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2,e1, t, attrs) >> An imprecise-n derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, t, attrs) >> >> >> Imprecise-1/imprecise-1 are distinguished with the attribute prov:steps. >> >> Why do we need 3 derivations? >> >> I believe that imprecise-n derivation is required for the 'scruffy >> provenance' use case. >> >> I believe that precise-1 derivation is required for the 'proper >> provenance' use case: in particular, it's a requirement for >> provenance based reproducibility. >> >> I don't understand why we have imprecise-1. Why can we just have >> imprecise-n and precise-1? >> >> PS. If we go with this proposal, then they could simply be called >> imprecise/precise, and we don't need the attribute steps. >> >> PS2. They would essentially be a unqualified and a qualified >> derivation (in prov-o terminology). >> >> >> >> >> > -- 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 Tuesday, 17 April 2012 15:43:14 UTC