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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:18:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4F6EC6D8.8010902@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round to, I question 
whether we actually need to have these concepts in the DM.

Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain the relationship 
between provenance entities and (possibly dynamic) real world things.  With the 
looser description of the provenance model terms, I don't see why this level of 
detail is needed in the data model.

The purpose of separating the DM description from its sytriucter interpretation 
is, IMO, to provide a relatively easy point of entry, particularly for 
developers who might generate provenance information for artifacts created by 
their software.

It may be that, when dealing with the stricter interpretation of provenance per 
Part 2, these ideas need to be re-introduced.  But in that context, they could 
be introduced in purely formal terms, as additional constraints that underpin 
some of the other constraints.  Then, I think such descriptions could be rooted 
in the formalization (per semantics) of the notion of invariance of entity 


On 23/03/2012 15:00, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Dear all,
> This is the oldest issue in the tracker for prov-dm.
> A week ahead of the release of prov-dm wd5 (for internal review), I propose
> to close this issue.
> Please have a look at the section [1] currently describing
> alternateOf/specializationOf.
> As indicated yesterday, suggested english definition for these relations is
> appreciated.
> Regards,
> Luc
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component4
> On 07/11/2011 12:22 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other
>> [Conceptual Model]
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29
>> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the possibility
>> that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
>> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)& (A IVPof B), and this is
>> surely not intended.
>> This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
>> - A and B both represent the same entity
>> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have corresponding values.
>> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of A
>> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B
>> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) that real
>> world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may disallow
>> "IPV of" in this situation. However, unless that is guaranteed, I think that
>> the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a definition) should
>> additionally require that:
>> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B"
>> Stephen
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 10:25:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:10 UTC