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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-452: what is plan in association inference [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:20:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbf-+t-PZQsFxpE+-rwKUEPNDMwE-ygbnNnPBc6aDe7y2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Isn't this related to the notion of default values for optional attributes?

I think you're correct that we need to clarify this somewhere earlier in
the document.
Perhaps we can expand the conventions section (1.1) with the used
notational conventions, such as the underscore for arguments that only
occur once in a constraint/inference. Maybe we could use a similar symbol
for possibly empty attributes, or just specify here that although the
constraints always specify all arguments, those with an underscore that are
optional, can possibly be omitted when applying the rule,


2012/7/18 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-452: what is plan in association inference [prov-dm-constraints]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm-constraints
> Some inferences allow new association statements to be inferred.
> See:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-attribution
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-delegation
> When we write: wasAssociatedWith(_id2;a, ag2, _pl2, _attrs2) in the
> consequent,
> a plan may not necessarily exist.
> So, shouldn't it be:
> wasAssociatedWith(_id2;a, ag2, _pl2, _attrs2)
> or
> wasAssociatedWith(_id2;a, ag2, -, _attrs2)
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:18 UTC