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: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:00:36 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2b145a0836d9cda4b5d59796ebbd059co75H0c08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|501FEA24.1010400@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

On 06/08/12 16:44, James Cheney wrote:
> I am happy to adopt the first changes, as they better reflect what we were trying to say.  Any objections?

+1
>
> 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.

Agree it's important to explain the bigger picture. There was a comment 
to that effect from Tim/Paul, and a suggested
picture.

Luc

> --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!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 6 August 2012 16:01:07 UTC

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