W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:44:20 +0100
Message-Id: <080E939F-AEC6-4B4F-BB7D-75D035CD5109@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I am happy to adopt the first changes, as they better reflect what we were trying to say.  Any objections?

For the second change, I still think it is important for the introduction to summarize what an application does to be (nontrivially) compliant with the constraints.  I will try to revise it to avoid confusing specification with implementation.

--James

On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> 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!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 15:44:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:19 UTC