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

PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:58:12 +0000
Message-Id: <E1UBTHg-0007OK-JE@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics]


Raised by: James Cheney
On product: Formal Semantics

This issue is a placeholder for discussion of the scope of the semantics, and whether we will attempt to develop an intuitive semantics such that the PROV-CONSTRAINTS (viewed as a first-order theory) is sound and complete in some sense.

Alternatively, we can consider completeness to mean that every valid PROV instance has a model, and soundness to mean that no invalid instances have models.  Currently, only soundness is intended to hold (but more work is needed to accomplish that).

Luc gives a counterexample to completeness:

 > entity(e)
 > activity(a1)
 > activity(a2)
 > wasGeneratedBy(gen1; e, a1, 2011-11-16T16:05:00)
 > wasGeneratedBy(gen2; e, a2, 2012-11-16T16:05:00) //different date
 > gen1 <= gen2 and gen2 <= gen1
 > Formalism 29 implies: 2011-11-16T16:05:00 == 2012-11-16T16:05:00
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 16:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:32 UTC