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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-459 (prov-constraints-lc-review): PROV-CONSTRAINTS review [prov-dm-constraints]

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:05:22 +0100
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <16E25A4F-15D3-4CD1-B9CF-33411E79B246@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
HI Stian,

Thanks for your detailed review.  You'll see I've tried to quickly respond to the issues raised so that we can triage and hopefully resolve the easy-to-resolve ones right away.  It would be helpful if you can check these soon to make sure I've understood your concern.

--James

On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> However I consider the following as blockers: (see below for details)
> 
>> 1) "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!
> 
> This is ISSUE-464 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/464
> 
> 
>> 2) "compliant applications use definitions, inferences, and uniqueness
>> constraints to normalize PROV instances (..)" -- DELETE
> 
> This is ISSUE-464 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/464
> 
> 
>> 3) Inference rules with existential variables causes infinite loops -
>> add note about not recursing on purely existential variables
> 
> This is ISSUE-465 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/465
> 
> 
>> 4) wasDerivedFrom activity and wasAssociatiedWith plan as
>> non-existential  - ; causes headaches later on where the plan is
>> assumed to exist. -- REWORD later uses
> 
> This is ISSUE-452 - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452
> 
> 
>> 5) Do we have WG consensus on that all entities must be invalidated,
>> and all activities must terminate? Seems to talk about the future,
>> rather than the past.
> 
> This is ISSUE-466 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/466
> 
> 
>> 6) Do we have WG consensus on activity start/end requiring triggers?
>> Can an activity terminate itself without a trigger? Start
>> instantaneously?
> 
> This is ISSUE-467 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467
> 
>> 7) Remove inference 12
> 
> Not sure if you have an issue for this already..?
> 
> 
>> 8) Remove wasStartedByActivity  from figure
> 
> This is ISSUE-468 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/468
> 
> 
>> 9) wasInvalidatedBy strictly follows wasGeneratedBy - do we have WG
>> consensus?  OK with zero-length activity? Need light justification.
> 
> This is ISSUE-469 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/469
> 
>> 10) wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,use,gen) requires use strictly before generation - why?
> 
> This is ISSUE-470 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/470
> 
>> 11) wasAttributedTo constraints WRONG in my view.
> 
> This is ISSUE-471 https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/471
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 16:05:45 UTC

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