- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:25:43 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James, I don't think it's the clearest. Are both bundle and instance are named set of statements? I wouldnt know which of these terms to use in prov-n. prov-n has : - statements: e.g. entity(e), wasGeneratedBy(a,e) - a construct bundle, which gives a name to a set of statements - a construct toplevel-bundle, which combines a set of statements, and bundles Are you suggesting to rename toplevel-bundle to dataset? Isn't it the case that an instance (which is a prov-constraint concept and not a prov-n concept) a set of statement or a bundle or a toplevel-bundle/dataset? Luc On 09/08/12 18:03, James Cheney wrote: > OK. I have done a quick pass to use the term "PROV dataset" and changed all occurrences of "toplevel bundle" to "toplevel instance". I think it's a lot better this way! > > instance = named set of statements. (Excluding "bundle" constructs, which are not statements.) > bundle = named set of statements ~= named graph of PROV-O (hopefully!) > dataset = an instance and zero or more bundles (with distinct names). > toplevel instance = the set of statements at the toplevel of a dataset > > Module typos/snags, does this look OK? If so I will close. > > Perhaps this terminology would be useful in other documents (Luc pointed out PROV-N uses "toplevel bundle" too...). > > --James > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: > >> Hello James, >> >> I strongly agree with the suggested general solution. I have no objection to "dataset" as a term. If you do still need to talk about bundles at all in PROV-Constraints, I think it should be made clear that the "toplevel" does not need to be named (does not need to be a bundle) to avoid confusion of concepts for different purposes. >> >> As said on the IRC, I don't think this is a blocking issue, just a matter of text clarification. >> >> thanks, >> Simon >> >> Dr Simon Miles >> Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics >> Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK >> +44 (0)20 7848 1166 >> >> Evolutionary Testing of Autonomous Software Agents: >> http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1370/ >> ________________________________________ >> From: James Cheney [jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk] >> Sent: 09 August 2012 17:21 >> To: Provenance Working Group >> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints] >> >> We discussed this in the teleconference and it sounded like it would be appropriate to find better terminology for the following three things, which are currently not clearly distinguished: >> >> - "the whole PROV instance, including set of toplevel statements and bundles" >> - "a particular set of statements, either the toplevel one or one within a bundle" >> - bundle = "a named set of provenance statements" >> >> My initial proposal is "PROV dataset", "PROV instance", and "bundle". I believe "PROV dataset" is roughly analogous to what people call "dataset" in the context of SPARQL; if anyone knows different (or has objections or better suggestions), let me know. >> >> I'll send another message on this when this is ready for review. >> >> --James >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >>> PROV-ISSUE-474 (instances-and-bundles): Bundles and valid instances [prov-dm-constraints] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474 >>> >>> Raised by: Simon Miles >>> On product: prov-dm-constraints >>> >>> As requested, I'm submitting an issue where I feel a PROV-Constraints review comment of mine is not completely answered. >>> >>> My original comment: >>>> Bundles >>>> ------- >>>> F. Section 6.1 seems a bit out of the blue. "The definitions >>>> [etc.]... assume a PROV instance with exactly one bundle", and then >>>> multiple bundles are handled as exactly the same number of >>>> instances. Why? Why is there a connection between number of instances >>>> and number of bundles? Why would a bundle be considered to be only one >>>> instance? I thought a bundle was an identified set of statements, >>>> allowing for provenance of provenance, which seems a distinct matter >>>> from whether a set of statements are valid. It seems fine for a user >>>> to treat one bundle as one instance if they want to, but there's no >>>> reason given why this is the general case. >>> Response from editors: >>>> I am not sure I understand this comment. However, I have rewritten >>>> slightly the intro of section 6.1. >>>> >>>> "The definitions, inferences, and constraints, and the resulting notions of normalization, validity and equivalence, assume a PROV instance that consists of exactly one bundle, the toplevel bundle, containing all PROV statements in the top level of the bundle (that is, not enclosed in a named bundle). In this section, we describe how to deal with PROV instances consisting of multiple named bundles. Briefly, each bundle is handled independently; there is no interaction between bundles from the perspective of applying definitions, inferences, or constraints, computing normal forms, or checking validity or equivalence." >>> I agree this is clearer, but I don't feel it answers the key questions in my comment. To put my comment another way: you have explained checking validity where an instance consists of one bundle and of multiple bundles. The two other possibilities I see are: >>> (a) A bundle containing multiple instances; >>> (b) An instance that is a collection of PROV descriptions with no identifier and so is not a bundle, e.g. a provenance service query result. >>> >>> How do we deal with each of these cases? Or, if they cannot occur, why not? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> > -- 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 Friday, 10 August 2012 04:27:29 UTC