- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:21:00 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/464 Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes On product: prov-dm-constraints >From Stian's review of PROV-Constraint http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0021.html > Applications should also use definitions, inferences and constraints to normalize PROV instances in order to determine whether two such instances convey the same information. No, they should not! It is not a requirement for applications to determine equivalence. Reword to something like: > Applications which are determining whether PROV instances convey the same information SHOULD use definitions, inferences and constraints to normalize the instances. Similarly this: > Applications should produce valid provenance and may reject provenance that is not valid should be: "Applications producing provenance SHOULD ensure it is _valid_, and similarly applications consuming provenance MAY reject provenance that is not _valid_." > To summarize: compliant applications use definitions, inferences, and uniqueness constraints to normalize PROV instances, and then apply event ordering constraints to determine whether the instance has a consistent event ordering. If so, the instance is valid, and the normal form is considered equivalent to the original instance. Also, any two PROV instances that yield the same normal form are considered equivalent. Delete this whole paragraph (except for PROv-SEM reference) - it is also assuming applications of PROV-Constraint only want to do normalization. It is saying you can't be compliant without doing all of the above!
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 15:21:01 UTC