ISSUE-464: Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV
dont-need-normalize
Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- prov-dm-constraints
- Raised by:
- Stian Soiland-Reyes
- Opened on:
- 2012-08-06
- Description:
- From Stian's review of PROV-Constraint
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0021.html
> Applications should also use definitions, inferences and constraints to normalize PROV instances in order to determine whether two such instances convey the same information.
No, they should not! It is not a requirement for applications to
determine equivalence.
Reword to something like:
> Applications which are determining whether PROV instances convey the same information SHOULD use definitions, inferences and constraints to normalize the instances.
Similarly this:
> Applications should produce valid provenance and may reject provenance that is not valid
should be:
"Applications producing provenance SHOULD ensure it is _valid_, and
similarly applications consuming provenance MAY reject provenance that
is not _valid_."
> To summarize: compliant applications use definitions, inferences, and uniqueness constraints to normalize PROV instances, and then apply event ordering constraints to determine whether the instance has a consistent event ordering. If so, the instance is valid, and the normal form is considered equivalent to the original instance. Also, any two PROV instances that yield the same normal form are considered equivalent.
Delete this whole paragraph (except for PROv-SEM reference) - it is
also assuming applications of PROV-Constraint only want to do
normalization. It is saying you can't be compliant without doing all
of the above!
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-08-08)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-08-08)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-08-08)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-08-08)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-459 (prov-constraints-lc-review): PROV-CONSTRAINTS review [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-08-06)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-08-06)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-08-06)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-459 (prov-constraints-lc-review): PROV-CONSTRAINTS review [prov-dm-constraints] (from soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2012-08-06)
- PROV-ISSUE-464 (dont-need-normalize): Applications do *not* need to normalize PROV [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-08-06)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log
