- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:52:47 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I think the current treatment in the latest DM draft addresses the concerns I raised here. I am happy to have it closed, but am leaving it open for Satya to close. Regards, Tim On Nov 30, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim and Satya, > > The derivation section has been entirely written, using a single relation wasDerivedFrom, > and an optional attribute to identify its level of precision. > > The terminology issues you have raised no longer apply. > > Are you happy if we formally close this issue? > Regards, > Luc > > On 11/16/2011 05:24 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Satya, >>> >>> Responses interleaved. I propose to close the issue, let me know if it shouldn't be the case. >>> The recent proposal that was circulated will not use the heavyweight terminology pe-linked/pe-independent. >>> >> It was difficult for me to grasp the "pe-linked" naming scheme in the DM, so I'm glad that it is being replaced. >> >> What is the new terminology? "Activity Linked" ? I think this is more natural and like the change. >> >> The anchors still reflect the old terminology. >> e.g. >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#pe-linked-derivationRecord >> >> so does the ASN: >> >> pe-linked-derivationRecord:= wasDerivedFrom ( identifier , identifier [, identifier , generationAttributeValues , useAttributesValues] ) >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On 16/10/2011 01:04, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> >>>> PROV-ISSUE-126: Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." [Data Model] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/126 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo >>>> On product: Data Model >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> This is a review comment for Section 5.3.3.2 "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." in the PROV-DM document (in mercurial fpwd head on Oct 15, 2011). >>>> >>>> Issue: The current definition for "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression." Section 5.3.3.2 states that: >>>> "A process execution independent derivation expression is a representation of a derivation, which occurred by any means whether direct or not, and regardless of any activity in the world." >>>> >>>> a) Does the above definition mean that an Entity instance e1 can be derived from another Entity instance e2 without the existence of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" activities? >>>> >>>> >>> Ativities may or they may not exist. We don't say anything about them, and we are not trying to link the derivation with any activity/activities. >>> >>>> b) If the above definition just means that there exists some PE linked to the derivation of e2 from e1, but a provenance application may not be aware of it, then how does it relate to the constraint "derivation-process-execution" defined for "Process Execution Linked Derivation Assertion" in Section 5.3.3.1? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> No, that's not the intent. If you know there is one PE, and you don't know about it, wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) is exactly capturing this notion. >>> >>>> The current definition of "wasDerivedFrom" states that there was an activity of "transformed from, created from, or affected by" that links the two Entity instances, which is *summarized* by the wasDerivedFrom property. Hence, "Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression" is not consistent with current definition of derivation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wasDerivedFrom is pe-linked, and PE independent derivation are not PE-linked. Idont' think there is any inconsistency here. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > >
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 00:53:27 UTC