- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:01:38 -0700
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Graham, all On 6/21/12 4:24 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > I think the slightly woolly description of tracedTo [1] makes it very hard to discuss what are reasonable inferences that involve > tracedTo. For example, if an entity (E1) is created by an activity A1 associated with agent program (Ag1) that is also an entity > compiled by a compiler (E2) which was written by agent (Ag2). Is it the case that that E1 tracedTo Ag2? I think from the > description of tracedTo [1] and the rest that the answer is "Yes", but I could imagine different answers. > > E1 <--genBy-- A1 --assocWith-> Ag1 <-genBy-- ?a <-used-- E2 --assocWith-> Ag2 > I am not quite sure I can parse this example, but regardless, I think what follows is important: > By comparison, my expectation is that specializationOf is quite clearly defined such that: > > a specializationOf b > > would allow > > P(b) |- P(a) > > for any provenance expression P. This is based on "a shares all aspects of b". (cf. [2]). I think this is precisely the sort of semantic statements we need to reason about the systems of rules and constraints that we are setting up -- which is otherwise quite arbitrary and ungrounded. So aren't these semantic properties the ones we should be discussing? -Paolo
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 19:02:11 UTC