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

Re: ACTION-91: comment regarding completeness

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:43:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4FD21DBA.9060407@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 6/8/12 4:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>>>> "The attributecomplete <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#membership.complete>is optional. It is 
>>>> interpreted as follows:
>>>> - if it is present and set to true, then c is known to include all and only the members specified in the key-entity-set.
>>> ^^^ This kind of "future proofing" is what raised the "completeness concerns", so I suggest toning this down.
>>> As I've said before, avoiding the OWA's "anything can come down the road" and instead focusing on "this is believed to be true, 
>>> according to the asserter" eases the completeness objections.
>> no problems with that, but as I pointed out in past discussions on this, this is true in general for /all/ provenance assertions, 
>> not just collections... right?
> I guess so.
> Which is why we don't have a "complete" flag on Entity, right?
rather, on relations:


is believed to be true by the asserter /and at the time of the assertion/.
We never really discussed what happens if tomorrow I find out that was not the case -- we barely managed to agree that your 
observations and mine need not be consistent, and we agreed that consistency is out of scope.

so that's where I think the OWA discussion should be situated.

regarding the specific "complete" flag issue,  I thought we had already concluded that, for the specific case of collection 
membership, the "complete" flag is nothing but syntactic sugar for insertion into an empty collection (or dictionary).

> So what you're doing is saying "if you ever try to talk about _my_ dictionary, you're talking about a different dictionary!"?
not sure I follow this?  if this is saying that provenance is relative to the observer and others have different views over "what 
happened" then yes, but again I think we have agreed (wisely, I should say)  not to go there.

Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:44:28 UTC

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