- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:07:02 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 10/02/2012 15:00, Daniel Garijo wrote: >> Yes, they are fundamentally the same, I agree. >> But I was wondering if in order to make the document more simple we were >> going to >> provide just the scruffy view first and the "proper" view as something for >> more advanced readers. > > Yes, I think that approach would be good. With the proviso that the "proper" view doesn't invalidate the "scruffy" view, but rather builds upon and refines it. +1 -Tim > > #g > -- > >> Daniel >> >> 2012/2/10 Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> >> >>> I think it's a mistake to think of "scruffy" and "proper" as different >>> kinds of provenance. They are fundamentally the same. Rather, if the >>> provenance is collected and managed under conditions that we might consider >>> "proper", then we can combine freely and use the additional inferences that >>> flow from those conditions. >>> >>> For provenance that is not collected and managed under these "proper" >>> conditions, then we may wish to consider something akin to Guha's "lifting >>> rules" [1] for extracting appropriately contextualized provenance >>> information that can be treated as "proper". >>> >>> In summary: scruffy vs proper isn't about the data model or the provenance >>> itself so much as its context of collection and use. IMO. >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> [1] http://www-formal.stanford.**edu/guha/<http://www-formal.stanford.edu/guha/> >>> >>> >>> On 10/02/2012 14:11, Daniel Garijo wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Khalid too. >>>> Small question: Is the new version of DM going to include both scruffy and >>>> proper provenance, >>>> or is it going to be separated in two different documents? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> 2012/2/10 Khalid Belhajjame<Khalid.Belhajjame@**cs.man.ac.uk<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> I think this proposal will also simplify the model. >>>>> The consequence of applying this proposal will also IMO remove some >>>>> confusion, by avoiding talking about granularity of the activities >>>>> involved >>>>> in the derivation. In particular, what for one observer can be >>>>> imprecise-1, because s/he believes that the activity involved in the >>>>> derivation is atomic, can be seen by another observer as imprecise-n, >>>>> because s/he believes that the activity involved in the derivation is >>>>> composite. Talking simply about precise and imprecise derivation allows >>>>> us >>>>> to avoid this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Khalid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/02/2012 23:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? >>>>>> [prov-dm] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/****track/issues/249<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/249> >>>>>> <http://www.**w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/**249<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/249> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>> On product: prov-dm >>>>>> >>>>>> We currently have 3 derivations: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A precise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, >>>>>> attrs) >>>>>> An imprecise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2,e1, t, attrs) >>>>>> An imprecise-n derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, t, attrs) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Imprecise-1/imprecise-1 are distinguished with the attribute prov:steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do we need 3 derivations? >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that imprecise-n derivation is required for the 'scruffy >>>>>> provenance' use case. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that precise-1 derivation is required for the 'proper >>>>>> provenance' use case: in particular, it's a requirement for provenance >>>>>> based reproducibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand why we have imprecise-1. Why can we just have >>>>>> imprecise-n and precise-1? >>>>>> >>>>>> PS. If we go with this proposal, then they could simply be called >>>>>> imprecise/precise, and we don't need the attribute steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS2. They would essentially be a unqualified and a qualified derivation >>>>>> (in prov-o terminology). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 01:07:48 UTC