ISSUE-249: Why do we have 3 derivations?

two-derivations

Why do we have 3 derivations?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm

Raised by:

Luc Moreau

Opened on:

2012-02-09

Description:

We currently have 3 derivations:


A precise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, a, g2, u1, attrs)
An imprecise-1 derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2,e1, t, attrs)
An imprecise-n derivation, written wasDerivedFrom(id, e2, e1, t, attrs)


Imprecise-1/imprecise-1 are distinguished with the attribute prov:steps.

Why do we need 3 derivations?

I believe that imprecise-n derivation is required for the 'scruffy provenance' use case.

I believe that precise-1 derivation is required for the 'proper provenance' use case: in particular, it's a requirement for provenance based reproducibility.

I don't understand why we have imprecise-1. Why can we just have
imprecise-n and precise-1?

PS. If we go with this proposal, then they could simply be called imprecise/precise, and we don't need the attribute steps.

PS2. They would essentially be a unqualified and a qualified derivation (in prov-o terminology).

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-04-17)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-08)
3. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-08)
4. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2012-03-08)
5. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-08)
6. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-07)
7. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-03-07)
8. Re: prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2012-03-06)
9. prov-wg: Telecon Agenda March 8, 2012 (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-03-06)
10. Re: Scruffy vs proper (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-03-03)
11. Re: Scruffy vs proper (was: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]) (from lebot@rpi.edu on 2012-03-03)
12. RE: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk on 2012-02-13)
13. Re: Scruffy vs proper (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-02-10)
14. Re: Scruffy vs proper (was: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]) (from dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es on 2012-02-10)
15. Scruffy vs proper (was: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]) (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2012-02-10)
16. Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es on 2012-02-10)
17. Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2012-02-10)
18. PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-02-09)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log