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: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:13:56 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5b33f88cac7f9ea1f94cbf88384561b7o6HBDx08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|50068C64.4010205@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

I am fine with your response, but section 6.1

states that wasAssociatedWith(id; a, ag, -, attr) is not equivalent to 
wasAssociatedWith(id; a, ag, pl, attr) where a plan is given.

It seems that some fine tuning is required here.

Luc

On 07/18/2012 10:52 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
>
> I don't see a need to raise issues about things that can be fixed 
> easily through discussion.  It just clogs the issue system.
>
> If we are treating "-" as an explicit "no plan" argument in 
> association statements, then the most general form is "there exists 
> _pl such that ... (... _pl ...).  So the urrent form of the rule 
> already subsumes the disjunctive form you suggest.  (Having rules with 
> explicit disjunctions in the heads is a bad idea, as it will take us 
> outside a well-behaved rule formalism.)
>
> --James
>
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Tom De Nies wrote:
>
>> Isn't this related to the notion of default values for optional 
>> attributes?
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#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,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> 2012/7/18 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker 
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto: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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 18 July 2012 10:14:44 UTC

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