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:
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2013-04-10)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from tom.denies@ugent.be on 2013-04-10)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk on 2013-04-09)
- RE: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk on 2013-04-09)
- Re: PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2013-04-08)
- PROV-SEM staged, ready for review (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-05)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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