W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

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

From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:49:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+=hbbd-qKaXYPtHAsgH+mZ2-RhMWO6Tx0BPHdRN+a_32cXvug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I would have liked some feedback on this before we implement it. Any
thoughts?
Was anything said about this during last week's telecon?
Thanks.
- Tom


2013/4/11 Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 09:50:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC