- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:16:29 +0100
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hi Khalid, On 01/08/11 18:16, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > Hi Luc, > > On 01/08/2011 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Khalid, >> It's the other way round. >> >> isDerivedFrom indicates only one process execution was involved. >> > I was making the assumption that isDerivedFrom is transitive. In the text, if I am not wrong, isDerivedFrom+ is defined as the transitive closure of isDerivedFrom Luc > > Khalid > >> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps indicates that we don't know how many >> were involved. >> >> Luc >> >> >> >> On 07/30/2011 09:04 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >>> >>> >>> I agree with you Simon. Probably, the only piece of information that >>> one would get from differentiating between the two, is that: >>> 1- isDerivedFrom(e1,e0): we don't know how many process executions >>> have been enacted to generate e1 from e0. >>> 2- isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0): we know that multiple >>> process executions that were enacted to generate e1 from e0. >>> (Although the text need to be changed to reflect this as explained >>> below) >>> >>> If the objective from differentiating between the two is as >>> explained above, then I would suggest to change the text in Section >>> 5.5.2 as follows: >>> >>> "... this specification introduces a further assertion >>> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *one* >>> or more process executions." >>> >>> to >>> >>> "... this specification introduces a further assertion >>> isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps(e1,e0), which may correspond to *two* >>> or more process executions." >>> >>> >>> Thanks, khalid >>> >>> >>> On 29/07/2011 17:52, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what >>>> is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/67 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Simon Miles >>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>> >>>> By the definition, "a process execution represents an identifiable >>>> activity". This does not seem to preclude one process execution >>>> assertion denoting, at a coarse granularity, the same events in the >>>> world denoted by multiple process executions in other assertions. >>>> >>>> If so, then in the File Scenario example, I could add a >>>> coarse-grained process execution representing the whole e1-to-e5 >>>> activity: >>>> processExecution(pe5,collaboratively-edit,t) >>>> uses(pe5,e1,in) >>>> isGeneratedBy(e5,pe5,out) >>>> >>>> But then Section 5.5.2 distinguishes between "a single process >>>> execution" and "one or more process executions". Following the >>>> argument above, these could represent exactly the same occurrences >>>> in the world. >>>> >>>> So there is no difference between what is denoted by one and >>>> multiple process executions, and so no difference between >>>> isDerivedFrom and isDerivedFromInMultipleSteps as described. >>>> Whether e5 was derived from e1 appears to me to be entirely >>>> independent of how many process executions were involved. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 23:17:02 UTC