- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:51:10 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian, There are two different issues discussed in this thread. The title suggests it is about existential triggers, which is what I focus on here. Can you explain what you mean by activities that just 'are'? Do you mean they have no cause? Or don't know the cause? I am concerned about suddenly making triggers non-expandable (i.e. not replaceable by existential variables) because we don't know the implications of that change. Also, the default was that - was replaceable by an existential variable, except in two cases. It seems that it is no longer the case. Luc On 08/08/12 09:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> Since you don't give an indication of what would resolve the issue, I'm not sure if this is a problem with PROV-DM, or with PROV-CONSTRAINTS? >> >> If the latter, would making the trigger parameters non-expandable (so that you can write "-" for a missing trigger) fix the problem? If so, I propose we do so. (This will also require being careful about these arguments later, as for derivation and association.) > I was just not sure if we had WG consent on the requirement of the > trigger as I don't remember seeing a discussion about this. I think > this is a problem with PROV-Constraints, as Prov-DM does not *require* > the trigger, it is optional there: > >> An end may refer to an entity, known as trigger ◊, that terminated the activity, or to an activity, known as ender ◊ that generated the trigger. >> trigger: an optional identifier (e) for the entity triggering the activity ending; >> ender: an optional identifier (a1) for the activity that generated the (possibly unspecified) entity (e); > which sounds sane to me. > > > However PROV-Constraints requires the trigger by existentialising (?) > it, which I find slightly odd, because I believe activities could > possibly be started/ended by other ways than triggers (for instance > activities representing phenonema, which just 'are'). Or do we require > this as a mirror to how entities must be generated by an activity, and > bite the bullet with phantom triggers/instructions? If we have to do > this, then I just need to be sure that this is OK even at the time > boundaries of the activity, so it can self-start and self-terminate. > > > If there are no protests, I would however prefer the - for missing > trigger, but I know this would cause more editorial changes, similar > to the blank "-" for the activity of wasDerivedFrom and plan of > wasAssociatedWith. However that is what I feel is most natural, that > both the trigger and its activity could be - for "unspecified" rather > than "unknown"; for both wasEndedBy and wasStartedBy. > > > If the inference rule is changed to imply > wasStartedBy(_id1;a,-,-,t1,[]) and similar for wasEndedBy(), then > this might be enough to stop the recursive looping as well. (Check!) > > > >> Are you also arguing for removing the wasEndedBy part of the conclusion? If so, any objections? > Yes, my argument is that the activity end might or might not be there. > For an activity that as far as the provenance asserter is concerned is > ongoing (which he has no way to say in PROV), this would be in the > future, or it might never happen (runs forever; for instance we don't > know if physics:expansionOfUniverse or bio:life will terminate). We > don't know, and should not then infer it. We can infer that the > activity is still alive at a later point (say because an entity was > generated by the activity), and hence know that there is no wasEndedBy > earlier than that point, but we don't know there will be an > wasEndedBy. > > -- 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 Wednesday, 8 August 2012 08:51:43 UTC