Re: PROV-ISSUE-385 (haProvenanceIn-complexity): The hasProvenbanceIn relation is over-complicated [prov-dm]

Hi Graham,

Like PROV-AQ, we need a target.
Example 47 illustrates the need for it:

   hasProvenanceIn(alice:report1, bob:bundle4, ex:report1)

In the current bundle, there is a description for alice:report1.
More provenance can be found for it in bundle bob:bundle4, under the 
name ex:report1.


The presence of attributes and id follow the pattern of other qualified 
relations.

Luc

On 28/05/12 20:01, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-385 (haProvenanceIn-complexity): The hasProvenbanceIn relation is over-complicated [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/385
>
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: prov-dm
>
> I'm raising this issue as a placeholder and for discussion.  I didn't notice the arrival of prov:hasProvenanceIn, but based on its appearance in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120525/prov-dm.html (which AFAIK is not a currently active draft, but a proposal) is rather over-complicated and a bit obscure.
>
> My sense is that, especially as this is motivated by PROV-AQ, there are just too many identifiers floating around.
>
> Instead of:
>
>    hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, target, attrs)
>
> Why not just:
>
>    hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle)
>
> Where subject is based on the URI of an entity, and bundle is based on the URI of a provenance bundle with information about that entity.
>
> I would like to understand what  real scenario justifies all the added machinery that has been included with this relation.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 20:28:31 UTC