ISSUE-635: Completeness and scope of prov-sem

prov-sem-completeness

Completeness and scope of prov-sem

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Formal Semantics
Raised by:
James Cheney
Opened on:
2013-03-01
Description:
This issue is a placeholder for discussion of the scope of the semantics, and whether we will attempt to develop an intuitive semantics such that the PROV-CONSTRAINTS (viewed as a first-order theory) is sound and complete in some sense.

Alternatively, we can consider completeness to mean that every valid PROV instance has a model, and soundness to mean that no invalid instances have models. Currently, only soundness is intended to hold (but more work is needed to accomplish that).


Luc gives a counterexample to completeness:

> entity(e)
> activity(a1)
> activity(a2)
> wasGeneratedBy(gen1; e, a1, 2011-11-16T16:05:00)
> wasGeneratedBy(gen2; e, a2, 2012-11-16T16:05:00) //different date
>
>
> gen1 <= gen2 and gen2 <= gen1
>
>
> Formalism 29 implies: 2011-11-16T16:05:00 == 2012-11-16T16:05:00
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
  2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification): Suggestion to replace procedural specification with (equivalent, but shorter and less prescriptive) declarative theory in First-Order Logic [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
  3. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
  4. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
  5. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
  6. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2013-04-10)
  7. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from tom.denies@ugent.be on 2013-04-10)
  8. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2013-04-09)
  9. RE: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk on 2013-04-09)
  10. Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2013-04-08)
  11. PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-05)
  12. Re: PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics] (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2013-03-10)
  13. Re: PROV-ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification): Suggestion to replace procedural specification with (equivalent, but shorter and less prescriptive) declarative theory in First-Order Logic [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-03-08)
  14. Re: PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-03-08)
  15. Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-03-05)
  16. Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2013-03-02)
  17. Re: PROV-ISSUE-630 (prov-sem-fpwd-review): PROV-SEM review for FPWD [Formal Semantics] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-03-02)
  18. PROV-ISSUE-635 (prov-sem-completeness): Completeness and scope of prov-sem [Formal Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-03-01)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 635.html,v 1.1 2013-06-20 07:37:57 vivien Exp $