Re: PROV-ISSUE-660 (TomDN): Constraints of PROV-Dictionary [PROV-DICTIONARY]

Small correction, we need to have enough to guarantee that insertions and
removals do not introduce *or remove* any key-entity pairs, other than
those specified.

I think the two proposed constraints are sufficient for this, unless I'm
missing something.

2013/4/11 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>

> PROV-ISSUE-660 (TomDN): Constraints of PROV-Dictionary [PROV-DICTIONARY]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/660
>
> Raised by: Tom De Nies
> On product: PROV-DICTIONARY
>
> Luc raised some interesting ideas for the constraints.
>
> Note that we now have this inference:
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/Overview.html#membership-insertion-membership-inference
> Inference D4 (membership-insertion-membership) Here, KV1 is a set of
> key-entity pairs and K1 is the key-set of KV1.
> 1. IF prov:hadDictionaryMember(d1, e, k) and
> prov:derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, KV1) and k ∉ K1 THEN
> prov:hadDictionaryMember(d2, e, k)
> 2. IF prov:hadDictionaryMember(d2, e, k) and
> prov:derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, KV1) and k ∉ K1 THEN
> prov:hadDictionaryMember(d1, e, k)
>
> (2nd part suggested by Luc)
> I do have one immediate question: do we introduce an infinite loop by
> doing this? (consequent of 1. appears in antecedent of 2., and vice versa)
> Or is this covered by http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#overview ?
>
> This got me thinking. If we have this, do we really need Inference D8?
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/Overview.html#insertion-removal-membership-inference
>
> Couldn't we just specify the same constraint as D4, but for removal?
> Suggestion:
> Inference D... (membership-removal-membership) Here, K1 is a set of keys.
> 1. IF prov:hadDictionaryMember(d1, e, k) and prov:derivedByRemovalFrom(d2,
> d1, K1) and k ∉ K1 THEN prov:hadDictionaryMember(d2, e, k)
> 2. IF prov:hadDictionaryMember(d2, e, k) and prov:derivedByRemovalFrom(d2,
> d1, K1) THEN prov:hadDictionaryMember(d1, e, k)
> Note that in the second case, k ∉ K1 is always true, otherwise constraint
> D9 is violated.
>
> Do we then have enough to guarantee that insertions and removals do not
> introduce any new key-entity pairs, other than those specified? (which is
> why we had Inference D8)
> I think so, so I'd like to propose this solution. Could we have your
> support or objections via mail or on today's call?
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>