Re: PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? [prov-dm]

All,
This issue is now closed.
Luc

On 03/08/2012 10:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I propose to close this issue, since we have agreed today that the 
> three forms
> of derivation should be replaced by a single one.
> Any other concern about derivations should be raised against the 
> document.
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> On 09/02/12 23:11, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-249 (two-derivations): Why do we have 3 derivations? 
>> [prov-dm]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/249
>>
>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>> On product: prov-dm
>>
>> 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).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, 17 April 2012 15:43:14 UTC