Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012

Hi Graham, all,

Thanks for your input. I made a few changes
- i fixed the asn
- i reordered the examples so that the simple one comes first
- i provided a brief explanation as to why it is useful to have 
activity, generation and usage mentioned.

Regarding the statement about transitivity, i don't think it's 
unreasonable to have it here. It's inline with
what we say for wasInformedBy, not transitive either.  But, if people 
feel we shouldn't say anything
about the characteristics of relations in part 1, I have got not 
objection moving this to part 2.
Maybe we should only say when a relation *is* transitive.

It would be good to hear what people think.

I hope it helps,

Cheers,
Luc

On 06/03/2012 21:30, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 13:41, Paul Groth wrote:
>    
>> 2) There is a proposal on derivation to resolve ISSUE-249. Please see
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-derivation.html
>>      
> In its present form, I can't be sure what it's trying to say, so I'd have to
> vote against.
>
> The ASN template and the description of terms do not match up.
>
> I don't understand "identifier for the generation involving the generated entity
> and activity"
>
> I don't understand " identifier for the usage involving the used entity and
> activity"
>
> Assuming section 1 is intended to go in DM part 1, then I think the paragraphj
> about transitivity is out of place.
>
> Why do we need anything other than:
>
>       wasDerivedFrom(e2, e1, [attr])
>
> ?
>
> At heart, generation is about two entities and an activity, so the full gamut of
> possibilities can be captured by
>
>     wasGeneratedBy
>     used
>
> statements
>
> Thus the wasDerivedFrom is available as a convenience property to describe the
> derivation when further information about the activity is not available.
>
> Note that I've deliberately ignored the multiple-stage derivation case.  When
> the derivation passes through a chain of activities, one could, if needed,
> introduce a new activity that is the composition of the sequence involved in the
> derivation.  In practice, I don't see that this arises in the simple cases.
>
> In summary, I propose: simplify!
>
> #g
> --
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12:58 UTC