Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]

Hi Luc,

Reading Graham's comment I'm also unclear what the purpose of this
requirement is.

I have a suspicion that the lack of clarity could from the conflation
of two issues:

1. the desire to express the role played by bobs in executions
2. the desire to have uniquely named parameters for executions, so
that bobs used can be uniquely referenced

Maybe I'm wrong and this is not the problem at all. But if it is, then
I suggest that we untangle the two issues. It is counter-intuitive to
me, and I strongly suspect it would be to users of the standard, to
disallow us from saying that two bobs played the same role in an
execution. If I want to say that process P chose numbers randomly from
two lists L1 and L2, then I would want to assert that L1 and L2 played
the same role in P. There may well always be a difference in each
bob's role if you look in fine detail at P, but I might not know that
difference nor want to model it if I did.

thanks,
Simon

On 4 August 2011 09:41, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham,
>>
>> On 07/29/2011 10:13 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> [[
>>> A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that
>>> refer to a given process execution, but each of those use assertions
>>> must have a distinct role.
>>> ]]
>>> In light of the above, this seems nonsensical to me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am trying to understand what the issue is.
>>
>> We're trying to say:
>>
>> For any b, bob(b,[...])
>> For any pe, processExecution(pe)
>>
>>     for any two assertions use(pe,b,r1,t1) and use(pe,b,r2,t2), then
>>      r1 <> r2
>>
>> Is there a problem with this?
>
> I now understand what you are trying to express.
>
> Is there a problem?  I don't know, because I don't properly understand what
> purpose "role" is serving here.
>
> Does anything actually break if this requirement is dropped?  I.e. if it's OK to
> say:
>
>   use(pe,b,r1,t1)
> AND
>   use(pe,b,r1,t2)
>
> #g
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 15:01:23 UTC