ISSUE-81: In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal?

identity-clash-scope

In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm

Raised by:

Luc Moreau

Opened on:

2011-08-24

Description:

Let us consider two entity assertions, inspired by those discussed in [1].

entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", pagenumber={15-17}])

entity(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17819-1_37, [author = "Jim Myers", reviewed={yes}])


Let us note that they have the same identifier but they have different
attributes.


What does it mean to have these two assertions occurring together in
the provenance of something?


1. If they were asserted by the same asserter, I would argue this is
not well formed provenance. Again, having a scoping construct is
useful, and we could introduce the following constraint:

Within an account, two entity assertions with the same identifier
must have the same attribute-value pairs.

2. Let us now imagine that the two assertions were created in separate
accounts (alice's and bob's), but now, we decide to "merge" all assertions
together.

2.1. The identifier had a scope that was local to the account in which it occurs.

Then it's OK again, in a sense, since we could apply an
alpha-conversion, renaming consistently the identifier in its
account before merging, so as to avoid a clash. The two
entities would be regarded as different, because having
different attributes (they just happened to have the same
identifier in their respective scope).

2.2 The identifier has a global scope. Then again, the same
constraint as above should apply (replacing account by global
scope).


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0326.html

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-01-20)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-01-12)
3. Re: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-30)
4. Re: PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-21)
5. PROV-ISSUE-155 (prov-o-pre-fpwd): general comments on prov-o document [Formal Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-11-21)
6. Re: [PROV-O] issues in document (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2011-10-15)
7. [PROV-O] issues in document (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-10-13)
8. Re: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-09-23)
9. RE: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (from MYERSJ4@rpi.edu on 2011-08-30)
10. Re: playing with pil ontology (from GK@ninebynine.org on 2011-08-25)
11. Re: playing with pil ontology (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-25)
12. PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-08-24)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log