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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-454 (key across relations/objectss): can the same identifier be used for different relations objects [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:39:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbfp+6Yk6bFtkig9muVQ5SwfH3HDq8SKZ-Lg0Th3P4fhRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
 The only problem I see with allowing it, is when using influencedBy.

With influence you'd be allowed to assert this:

agent(a1)
activity(a1)
influencedBy(a1,a1)

- Tom

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

> PROV-ISSUE-454 (key across relations/objectss): can the  same identifier
> be used for  different relations objects [prov-dm-constraints]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/454
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: prov-dm-constraints
>
>
> We have the following two uniqueness constraints.
>
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-object
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-relation
>
> It is not clear to me if
>
> entity(e123)
> agent(e123)
>
> are acceptable. (To me, they should be, since we don't state the set of
> agents to be disjoint from any other set)
>
> Likewise, can we write
>
> used(event1234,a1,e1,attrs1)
> and
> wasGeneratedBy(event1234,e2,a2,attrs2)
>
> Probably not.
> Note: if we allow the two above, then I am not sure that strict ordering
> is wise in ordering constraints.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:39:55 UTC

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