- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:12:11 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
There were no objections to keeping this inference, and some support, so it is in. The issue is now closed. --James On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Paolo Missier wrote: > this seems like a convincing argument to me: > > On 7/18/12 3:51 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: >> It seems strange not to keep the inference, even if informally stated. A defining feature of revision is that the revisions are alternate versions of the same more general entity. Otherwise, it is just derivation (another defining feature of revision). > However, it brings me to a follow on question: wasDerivedFrom is not defined as anti-symmetric. Is that intentional? (this does have a consequence because alternateOf is symmetric) > > -Paolo > > >> >> Dr Simon Miles >> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics >> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK >> +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >> >> Mapping Dublin Core (Attribution Metadata) to the Open Provenance Model: >> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1386/ >> ________________________________________ >> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu] >> Sent: 18 July 2012 13:18 >> To: Luc Moreau >> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-451 (revision-is-alternate): Keep or drop revision-is-alternate [prov-dm-constraints] >> >> On Jul 18, 2012, at 6:31 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >>> Hi James, >>> >>> OK, it helps with equivalence checking. >>> >>> I wrote the inference, and I am asking the WG whether we want to keep it. >> >> +1 >> >> Tim >> >>> Luc >>> >>> On 07/18/2012 11:04 AM, James Cheney wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I don't see a need to raise issues about things that can be fixed easily through discussion among the editors of the document, for problems that are essentially typos on intermediate drafts. It just clogs the issue system. >>>> >>>> In addition, for this issue it's not clear what the problem is, and what your proposed solution is. >>>> >>>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-451 (revision-is-alternate): Keep or drop revision-is-alternate [prov-dm-constraints] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/451 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: prov-dm-constraints >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Inference revision-is-alternate is an outlier. It's the only inference about a prov subtype. >>>> We motivate inferences and constraints for two reasons: to allow validity checking and to allow reasoning over valid provenance (such as equivalence checking). This inference seems to be about the second goal (which I took to be important from the previous states of the document and discussion). >>>> >>>>> It's not sure that it allows us to derive more temporal constraint since there is no constraint associated with alternate. >>>>> >>>> I can't understand this sentence. >>>> >>>> If you are saying "removing this makes no difference since there are no constraints involving alternate", then, well, there are some inferences that make use of alternateOf. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#revision-is-alternate >>>>> >>>>> So, is there value in this inference, in terms of validating provenance? >>>> No, but it has been there for a while. Does whoever wrote it in the first place want to keep it? >>>> >>>> If relevance to validity checking is our sole criterion for deciding what to keep, then there are other things we could drop (e.g. all the inferences about alternate). >>>> >>>> --James >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > ----------- ~oo~ -------------- > Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org > School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK > http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 16:12:39 UTC