- From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:58:12 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/635 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