- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:00 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Satya, I am not sure there is anything else I can add to this. How do you want to progress it? For info, the relevant constraint is now in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#term-traceability Regards, Luc On 12/08/2011 10:40 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Satya, > > On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/199 >> >> Raised by: Satya Sahoo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> Hi, >> The following are my comments for Section 6.2 of the PROV-DM (as on >> Dec 5): >> >> Section 6.2 >> 1. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,a,g2,u1) holds, for some a, g2, u1, then >> tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds." >> >> Comment: What information is lost if we verbatim replaced tracedTo >> with wasDerivedFrom in the above example? > > If I understand you correctly, this is what we have for > 'derivation-implications' constraint. > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#derivation-implications > > >> 2. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) holds, then tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds." >> >> Comment: So, wasDerivedFrom and tracedTo as effectively >> interchangeable? If a domain-specific application can assert >> derivation to be transitive as described earlier in Section 5.3.3.2, >> then why is traceability required to be defined by the DM? >> > > No, one implies the other, but not the converse. It's not equivalence. > > Luc >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> Satya >> >> >> > -- 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 Friday, 23 March 2012 14:33:36 UTC