--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html Mon Sep 12 20:50:24 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html Tue Sep 13 22:59:29 2011 +0100
@@ -457,11 +457,11 @@
<p>
Control Expressions (described in <a href="#expression-Control">Section Control</a>): the influence of an agent over a process execution is expressed as control, and the nature of this influence is described by a role (construct described in <a href="#expression-Role">Section Role</a>). Illustrations of such roles are creator, author and communicator.
<pre>
-wasControlledBy(pe0,a1, creator)
-wasControlledBy(pe1,a2, author)
-wasControlledBy(pe2,a3, communicator)
-wasControlledBy(pe3,a4, author)
-wasControlledBy(pe4,a5, communicator)
+wasControlledBy(pe0,a1, [role=creator])
+wasControlledBy(pe1,a2, [role=author])
+wasControlledBy(pe2,a3, [role=communicator])
+wasControlledBy(pe3,a4, [role=author])
+wasControlledBy(pe4,a5, [role=communicator])
</pre>
</p>
</section>
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@
-<div class='pending'>Characterized entity may be variant. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/32">ISSUE-32</a></div>
+<div class='resolved'>Characterized entity may be variant. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/32">ISSUE-32</a></div>
<div class='issue'>How is domain specific data combined with the provenance model? This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/65">ISSUE-65</a>.</div>
@@ -832,8 +832,8 @@
<p>
The following generation assertion
<pre class="example">
- used(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1)
- used(e2,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=2),t2)
+ wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1)
+ wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=2),t2)
</pre>
states the existence of two events in the world, at which new characterized things, represented by entity denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span> are created by an activity, represented by a process execution, denoted <span class="name">pe1</span>.
The first one is obtained as the first value on port p1, whereas the other second value on port p1. The semantics of port and order in these expressions are application specific.
@@ -948,8 +948,8 @@
<div class='constraint' id='use-pe-ordering'><a name="PIL:0006">Given a process execution <span class="name">pe</span>, entity <span class="name">e</span>, role <span class="name">r</span>, and optional time <span class="name">t</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span>
assertion <span class="name">used(pe,e,r)</span> or <span class="name">used(pe,e,r,t)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span> one can
-infer that the use of the thing denoted by <span class="name">e</span> precedes the end
-of <span class="name">pe</span> and follows the beginning of <span class="name">pe</span>. Furthermore, we
+infer that the use of the thing represented by entity expression identified by <span class="name">e</span> precedes the end
+of the process execution expression <span class="name">pe</span> and follows its beginning. Furthermore, we
can infer that the generation of the thing denoted by <span class="name">e</span> always precedes
its use.</a>
[<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0006">PIL:0006</a>] </div>
@@ -968,7 +968,7 @@
<p>In PROV-DM, a <dfn id="dfn-Derivation">derivation expression</dfn> is a representation that some characterized thing is transformed from, created from, or affected by another characterized thing in the world. </p>
-<p>PROV-DM offers two different kinds of expressions by which asserters can formulate derivations. The first one is tightly connected to the notion of activity (represented by process execution), whereas the second one is not. The first kind of assertion is particularly suitable for asserters who have an intimate knowledge of activities, is more prescriptive, but offers a more precise description of derivation, whereas the second does not put such a requirement on the asserter, and allows a less precise description of derivation to be formulated. Both expressions need to be asserted by asserters, since PROV-DM does not provide the means to infer them; however, from these assertions, further derivations can be inferred by transitive closure. </p>
+<p>PROV-DM offers two different forms of derivation expressions. The first one is tightly connected to the notion of activity (represented by a process execution expression), whereas the second one is not. The first kind of assertion is particularly suitable for asserters who have an intimate knowledge of activities, is more prescriptive, but offers a more precise description of derivation, whereas the second does not put such a requirement on the asserter, and allows a less precise description of derivation to be formulated. Both expressions need to be asserted by asserters, since PROV-DM does not provide the means to infer them; however, from these assertions, further derivations can be inferred by transitive closure. </p>
<p>In PROV-ASN, a derivation expression's text matches the <span class='nonterminal'>derivationExpression</span> production of the grammar defined in this specification document.</p>
@@ -1010,39 +1010,52 @@
<span class="name">)</span><br/>
</div>
-<p>The three kinds of derivations are successively introduced.</p>
+<p>The three kinds of derivation expressions are successively introduced.</p>
<section>
<h4>Process Execution Linked Derivation Assertion</h4>
-<p>A process execution linked derivation expression, which, by definition of derivation, is a representation that some characterized thing is transformed from, created from, or affected by another characterized thing, also entails the existence of a process execution expression that represents an activity that transforms, creates or affects this characterized thing.</pe>
+<p>A process execution linked derivation expression, which, by definition of a derivation expression, is a representation that some characterized thing is transformed from, created from, or affected by another characterized thing, also entails the existence of a process execution expression that represents an activity that transforms, creates or affects this characterized thing.</pe>
<p>In its full form, a process-execution linked derivation expression, noted <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1)</span> in PROV-ASN:
<ul>
<li> refers to an entity expression identified by <span class="name">e2</span>, which is a representation of the generated characterized thing;
<li> refers to an entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span>, which is a representation of the used characterized thing;
<li> refers to a process execution expression identified by <span class="name">pe</span>, which is a representation of the activity using and generating the above characterized things;
-<li> contains a qualifier <span class="name">q2</span>, which is the qualifier in the generation expression containing <span class="name">e2</span> and <span class="name">pe</span>;
-<li> contains a qualifier <span class="name">q1</span>, which is the qualifier in the use expression containing <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">pe</span>.
+<li> contains a qualifier <span class="name">q2</span>, which qualifies the generation expression pertaining to <span class="name">e2</span> and <span class="name">pe</span>;
+<li> contains a qualifier <span class="name">q1</span>, which qualifies in the use expression pertaining to <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">pe</span>.
</ul>
+
+
+
+<p>For convenience, PROV-DM allows for a compact, process-execution linked derivation assertion, written <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> in PROV-ASN, which:
+<ul>
+<li> refers to an entity expression identified by <span class="name">e2</span>, which is a representation of the generated characterized thing;
+<li> refers to an entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span>, which is a represenation of the used characterized thing.
+</ul>
+</p>
+
+
<p>The following derivation assertions
<pre class="example">
-wasDerivedFrom(e5,e3,pe4,attachment,in)
+wasDerivedFrom(e5,e3,pe4,qualifier(channel=out),qualifier(channel=in))
wasDerivedFrom(e3,e2)
</pre>
</p>
state the existence of process-linked derivations;
the first expresses that the activity represented by the process execution <span class="name">pe4</span>, by
-using the thing represented by <span class="name">e3</span> with role <span class="name">in</span> derived the
-thing represented by entity <span class="name">e5</span> and generated it with
-role <span class="name">attachment</span>. The second is similar for <span class="name">e3</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, but it leaves the process execution and associated roles implicit.
+using the thing represented by <span class="name">e3</span> obtained on the <span class="name">in</span> channel
+ derived the
+thing represented by entity <span class="name">e5</span> and generated it on
+channel <span class="name">out</span>. The second is similar for <span class="name">e3</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, but it leaves the process execution expression and associated qualifiers implicit. The meaning of "channel" is application specific.
</p>
+
<p>
-The following inference rule states that a generation and use event can be inferred from a process execution linked derivation.
+The following inference rule states that a generation and use event can be inferred from a process execution linked derivation expression.
</p>
<div class="constraint" id='derivation-events'>
@@ -1052,41 +1065,35 @@
</div>
-<p>For convenience, PROV-DM allows for a compact, process-execution linked derivation assertion, written <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> in PROV-ASN, which:
-<ul>
-<li> refers to an entity identified by <span class="name">e2</span>, which is a representation of the generated characterized thing;
-<li> refers to an entity identified by <span class="name">e1</span>, which is a represenation of the used characterized thing.
-</ul>
-</p>
-
-
-<p>The compact version has the same meaning as the fully formed process-execution linked derivation, except that a process execution is known to exist, though it does not need to be asserted.
-This is formalized by the following inference rule, referred to as <em>process execution introduction</em>:<br/>
+<p>The compact version has the same meaning as the fully formed
+process-execution linked derivation expression, except that a process
+execution expression is known to exist, though it does not need to be
+asserted. This is formalized by the following inference rule,
+referred to as <em>process execution introduction</em>:<br/>
<div class='constraint' id="derivation-process-execution">
<a name="PIL:0009">
-<span class='conditional'>If</span> <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span> there exists a process execution <span class="name">pe</span>, and roles <span class="name">r1</span>,<span class="name">r2</span>,
+<span class='conditional'>If</span> <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span> there exists a process execution expression identified by <span class="name">pe</span>, and qualifiers <span class="name">q1</span>,<span class="name">q2</span>,
such that:
- <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,r2)</span> and <span class="name">used(pe,e1,r1)</span>. [<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0009">PIL:0009</a>]
+ <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,q2)</span> and <span class="name">used(pe,e1,q1)</span>. [<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0009">PIL:0009</a>]
</div></p>
-<p>If <span class="name">e2</span> is derived from <span class="name">e1</span>, then
-this means that the thing represented by the entity identified by <span class="name">e1</span> has an influence on the thing represented by the entity identified <span class="name">e2</span>, which is captured by a dependency between their attribute values; it also implies temporal ordering. These are specified as follows:</p>
-
-<div class='constraint' id='derivation-attributes'><a name="PIL:0007">Given a process execution <span class="name">pe</span>, entities <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, roles <span class="name">r1</span> and <span class="name">r2</span>, the assertion <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,r2,r1)</span>
-or <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>if and only if</span>
- the values of some attributes
-of <span class="name">e2</span> are partly or fully determined by the values of some
-attributes of <span class="name">e1</span>.</a> [<a
+<p>If a derivation expression holds for <span class="name">e2</span> and <span class="name">e1</span>, then it means that the thing represented by the entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span> has an influence on the thing represented by the entity expression identified by <span class="name">e2</span>, which is captured by a dependency between their attribute values; it also implies temporal ordering. These are specified as follows:</p>
+
+<div class='constraint' id='derivation-attributes'><a name="PIL:0007">Given a process execution expression denoted by <span class="name">pe</span>, entity expressions denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, qualifiers <span class="name">q1</span> and <span class="name">q2</span>, the assertion <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1)</span>
+or <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds <span class='conditional'>if and only if</span>
+ the values of some attributes of the entity expression identified by
+ <span class="name">e2</span> are partly or fully determined by the values of some
+attributes of the entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span>.</a> [<a
href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0007">PIL:0007</a>] </div>
-<div class='note'>Should this dependency of attributes be made explicit as argument of the derivation? By making it explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the derivation.</div>
-
-
-
-<div class='constraint' id='derivation-use-generation-ordering'><a name="PIL:0008">Given a process execution <span class="name">pe</span>, entities <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, roles <span class="name">r1</span> and <span class="name">r2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the assertion <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,r2,r1)</span>
+<div class='note'>Should this dependency of attributes be made explicit as argument of the derivation expression? By making it explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the derivation expression.</div>
+
+
+
+<div class='constraint' id='derivation-use-generation-ordering'><a name="PIL:0008">Given a process execution expression identified by <span class="name">pe</span>, entity expressions identified by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, qualifiers <span class="name">q1</span> and <span class="name">q2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the assertion <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1)</span>
or <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span>
the use
of characterized thing denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> precedes the generation of
@@ -1108,29 +1115,29 @@
</p>
-<p>A further inference is permitted from the compact version of derivation:
+<p>A further inference is permitted from the compact version of derivation expression:
<div class='constraint' id='derivation-use'>
-<a name="PIL:0011">Given a process execution <span class="name">pe</span>, entities <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, and role <span class="name">r2</span>,
-<span class='conditional'>if</span> <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> and <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,r2)</span> hold, <span class='conditional'>then</span> there exists a role <span class="name">r1</span>,
+<a name="PIL:0011">Given a process execution expression identified by <span class="name">pe</span>, entity expressions identified by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, and qualifier <span class="name">q2</span>,
+<span class='conditional'>if</span> <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> and <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,q2)</span> hold, <span class='conditional'>then</span> there exists a qualifier <span class="name">q1</span>,
such that <span class="name">used(pe,e1,r1)</span> also holds.</a>
[<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0011">PIL:0011</a>]
</div>
-This inference is justified by the fact that <span class="name">e2</span> is generated by at most one process execution in a given account (see <a href="#generation-unicity">generation-unicity</a>). Hence, this process execution is also the one that used <span class="name">e1</span>.
+This inference is justified by the fact that the characterized thing represented by entity expression identified by <span class="name">e2</span> is generated by at most one activity in a given account (see <a href="#generation-unicity">generation-unicity</a>). Hence, this process execution expression is also the one referred to in the use expression of <span class="name">e1</span>.
</p>
<p>We note that the "symmetric" inference, does not hold.
From <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> and <span class="name">used(pe,e1)</span>, one cannot
-derive <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,r2)</span> because <span class="name">e1</span> may be used by
-many process executions, not all of them generating <span class="name">e2</span>.</p>
+derive <span class="name">wasGeneratedBy(e2,pe,r2)</span> because identifier <span class="name">e1</span> may occur in use expressions referring to
+many process execution expressions, but they may not be referred to in generation expressions containing identifier <span class="name">e2</span>.</p>
</section>
<section>
-<h4>Process Execution Independent Derivation</h4>
+<h4>Process Execution Independent Derivation Expression</h4>
@@ -1139,20 +1146,20 @@
<p>A process-execution independent derivation expression, written <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom (e2, e1)</span> in PROV-ASN,
<ul>
-<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e2</span>, denoting an entity, which represents the generated characterized thing;
-<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e1</span>, denoting an entity, which represents the used characterized thing.
+<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e2</span>, denoting an entity expression, which represents the generated characterized thing;
+<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e1</span>, denoting an entity expression, which represents the used characterized thing.
</ul>
-<p>If <span class="name">e2</span> is derived (wasEventuallyDerivedFrom) from <span class="name">e1</span>, then
-this means that the thing represented by <span class="name">e1</span> has an influence on the thing represented by <span class="name">e2</span>,
+<p>If a derivation expression (wasEventuallyDerivedFrom) holds for <span class="name">e2</span> and <span class="name">e1</span>, then
+this means that the thing represented by entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span> has an influence on the thing represented entity expression identified by <span class="name">e2</span>,
which at the minimum implies temporal ordering, specified as follows:</p>
<div class='constraint' id='derivation-generation-generation-ordering'>
- <a name="PIL:0012">Given two entities denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the expression <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span>
+ <a name="PIL:0012">Given two entity expressions denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the expression <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span>
holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span> the
-generation of the characterized thing denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> precedes the generation of
-the characterized thing denoted by <span class="name">e2</span>.</a>
+generation event of the characterized thing represented by the entity expression denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> precedes the generation event of
+the characterized thing represented by the entity expression denoted by <span class="name">e2</span>.</a>
[<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0012">PIL:0012</a>]
</div>
@@ -1163,12 +1170,11 @@
wasEventuallyDerivedFrom, nothing is known about the use of <span class="name">e1</span>,
since there is no associated process execution.</p>
-<p>A process execution linked derivation is a richer form of
-derivation than a process execution independent derivation, since it
-contains or implies the existence of a process execution. Hence, from
+<p>A process execution linked derivation expression is a richer than a process execution independent derivation expression, since it
+contains or implies the existence of a process execution expression. Hence, from
the former, we can infer the latter.</p>
<div class='constraint' id='derivation-linked-independent'>
-Given two entities denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the assertion <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span>
+Given two entity expressions denoted by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the assertion <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span>
holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span> the
the assertion <span class="name">wasEventuallyDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> also holds.
</div>
@@ -1185,7 +1191,7 @@
</section>
<section>
-<h4>Transitive Derivation</h4>
+<h4>Transitive Derivation Expression</h4>
<p>
@@ -1193,15 +1199,15 @@
and if <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e3,e2)</span> holds because attribute <span class="name">a3.1</span>of <span class="name">e3</span> is determined by attribute <span class="name">a2.2</span> of <span class="name">e1</span>, it is not necessarily the case that an attribute of <span class="name">e3</span> is determined by an attribute of <span class="name">e1</span>; so, an asserter may not be able to assert <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e3,e1)</span>, since it would fail to satisfy constraint <a href="#derivation-attributes">derivation-attributes</a>. Hence, the constraint on attributes as expressed in <a href="#derivation-attributes">derivation-attributes</a> invalidates transitivity in the general case.
</p>
-<p>However, there is sense that <span class="name">e3</span> still depends on <span class="name">e1</span>, since <span class="name">e3</span> could not be generated without <span class="name">e1</span> existing. Hence, we introduce a weaker notion of derivation, which is transitive.</p>
+<p>However, there is sense that <span class="name">e3</span> still depends on <span class="name">e1</span>, since <span class="name">e3</span> could not be generated without <span class="name">e1</span> existing. Hence, we introduce a weaker notion of derivation expression, which is transitive.</p>
An instance of a transitive derivation expression, written <span class="name">dependedOn(e2, e1)</span> in PROV-ASN:
<ul>
-<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e2</span>, denoting an entity, which represents the characterized thing that is the result of the derivation;
-<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e1</span>, denoting an entity, which represents the characterized thing that the derivation depends on.
+<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e2</span>, denoting an entity expresson, which represents the characterized thing that is the result of the derivation;
+<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">e1</span>, denoting an entity expresson, which represents the characterized thing that the derivation relies upon.
</ul>
<p>The expression <span class="name">dependedOn</span> can only be inferred; in other word, it cannot be asserted. It is
-transitive by definition and relies onn the previously defined derivation assertions for its
+transitive by definition and relies on the previously defined derivation assertions for its
base case.</p>
<div class='constraint' id='transitive-derivation'>
@@ -1217,7 +1223,7 @@
-<div class='pending'>Is derivation transitive? If so, it should not be introduced as an assertion. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/45">ISSUE-45</a>.</div>
+<div class='resolved'>Is derivation transitive? If so, it should not be introduced as an assertion. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/45">ISSUE-45</a>.</div>
<div class='issue'>Should derivation have a time? Which time? This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43">ISSUE-43</a>.</div>
@@ -1237,37 +1243,37 @@
<section id="expression-Control">
<h3>Control</h3>
-<p> A <dfn id="dfn-Control">control expression</dfn> is a representation of the involvement of characterized thing (represented as an agent or an entity) in an activity, which is represented by a process execution; a role qualifies this involvement.</p>
-
-<p>In PROV-ASN, a control expression's text matches the <span class="nonterminal">control</span> production of the grammar defined in this specification document.
+<p> A <dfn id="dfn-Control">control expression</dfn> is a representation of the involvement of characterized thing (represented as an agent expresson or an entity expression) in an activity, which is represented by a process execution expressoin; a control qualifier qualifies this involvement.</p>
+
+<p>In PROV-ASN, a control expression's text matches the <span class="nonterminal">controlExpression</span> production of the grammar defined in this specification document.
</p>
<div class='grammar'>
-<span class="nonterminal">control</span> :=
+<span class="nonterminal">controlExpression</span> :=
<span class="name">wasControlledBy</span>
<span class="name">(</span>
<span class="nonterminal">identifier</span>,
<span class="nonterminal">identifier</span>,
-<span class="nonterminal">role</span>
+<span class="nonterminal">controlQualifier</span>
<span class="name">)</span>
</div>
-<p>An instance of a control expression, noted <span class="name">wasControlledBy(pe,ag,r)</span> in PROV-ASN :
+<p>An instance of a control expression, noted <span class="name">wasControlledBy(pe,ag,q)</span> in PROV-ASN :
<ul>
-<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">pe</span> denoting a process execution, representing the controlled activity;
-<li> refers to an agent or an entity <span class="name">ag</span>, representing the controlling characterized thing;
-<li> contains a role <span class="name">r</span>, qualifying the involvement of the thing in the activity.
+<li> contains an identifier <span class="name">pe</span> denoting a process execution expression, representing the controlled activity;
+<li> refers to an agent expression or an entity expression <span class="name">ag</span>, representing the controlling characterized thing;
+<li> contains a qualifier <span class="name">q</span>, qualifying the involvement of the thing in the activity.
</ul>
</p>
<p>
The following control assertion
<pre class="example">
-wasControlledBy(pe3,a4,author)
+wasControlledBy(pe3,a4,[role=author])
</pre>
-states that the activity, represented by the process execution denoted by <span class="name">pe3</span> saw the involvement of a characterized thing, represented by entity denoted by <span class="name">a4</span> in the capacity of author.
+states that the activity, represented by the process execution expression denoted by <span class="name">pe3</span> saw the involvement of a characterized thing, represented by entity expression denoted by <span class="name">a4</span> in the capacity of author.
</p>
</section>
@@ -1282,17 +1288,17 @@
<p>
-The rationale for introducing this relationship is that in general, at any given time, for a thing in the world, there may be multiple way of characterizing it, and hence multiple representations can be asserted by different asserters. In the example that follows, suppose thing "Royal Society" is represented by two asserters, each using a different set of attributes. If the asserters agree that both representations refer to "The Royal Society", the question of whether any correspondence can be established between the two representations arises naturally. This is particularly relevant when (a) the sets of properties used by the two representations overlap partially, or (b) when one set is subsumed by the other. In both these cases, we have a situation where each of the two asserters has a partial view of "The Royal Society", and establishing a correspondence between them on the shared properties is beneficial, as in case (a) each of the two representation <em>complements</em> the other, and in case (b) one of the two (that with the additional properties) complements the other.</p>
+The rationale for introducing this relationship is that in general, at any given time, for a thing in the world, there may be multiple ways of characterizing it, and hence multiple representations can be asserted by different asserters. In the example that follows, suppose thing "Royal Society" is represented by two asserters, each using a different set of attributes. If the asserters agree that both representations refer to "The Royal Society", the question of whether any correspondence can be established between the two representations arises naturally. This is particularly relevant when (a) the sets of properties used by the two representations overlap partially, or (b) when one set is subsumed by the other. In both these cases, we have a situation where each of the two asserters has a partial view of "The Royal Society", and establishing a correspondence between them on the shared properties is beneficial, as in case (a) each of the two representation <em>complements</em> the other, and in case (b) one of the two (that with the additional properties) complements the other.</p>
<p>This intuition is made more precise by considering the entities that form the representations of characterised things at a certain point in time.
-An entity represents, by means of attribute-value pairs, a thing and its situation in the world, which remain constant over a characterization interval.
-As soon as the thing's situation changes, this marks the end of the characterization interval for the entity representing it. The thing's novel situation is represented by an attribute with a new value, or an entirely different set of attribute-value pairs, embodied in another entity, with a new characterization interval. Thus, if we overlap the timelines (or, more generally, the sequences of value-changing events) for the two characterised things, we can hope two establish correspondences amongst the entities that represent them at various points along that events line. The figure below illustrates this intuition.</p>
+An entity expression represents, by means of attribute-value pairs, a thing and its situation in the world, which remain constant over a characterization interval.
+As soon as the thing's situation changes, this marks the end of the characterization interval for the entity expression representing it. The thing's novel situation is represented by an attribute with a new value, or an entirely different set of attribute-value pairs, embodied in another entity expression, with a new characterization interval. Thus, if we overlap the timelines (or, more generally, the sequences of value-changing events) for the two characterised things, we can hope two establish correspondences amongst the entity expressions that represent them at various points along that events line. The figure below illustrates this intuition.</p>
<img src="complement-of.png"/>
<p>
-Relation <em>complement-of</em> between two entities is intended to capture these correspondences, as follows. Suppose entities A and B share a set P of properties, and each of them has other properties in addition to P. If the values assigned to each property in P are <em>compatible</em> between A and B, then we say that <em>A is-complement-of B</em>, and <em>B is-complement-of A</em>, in a symmetrical fashion. In the particular case where the set P of properties of B is a struct superset of A's properties, then we say that <em>B is-complement-of A</em>, but in this case the opposite does not hold. In this case, the relation is not symmetric. (as a special case, A and B may not share any attributes at all, and yet the asserters may still stipulate that they are representing the same thing "Royal Society". The symmetric relation may hold trivially in this case).</p>
+Relation <em>complement-of</em> between two entity expressions is intended to capture these correspondences, as follows. Suppose entity expressions A and B share a set P of properties, and each of them has other properties in addition to P. If the values assigned to each property in P are <em>compatible</em> between A and B, then we say that <em>A is-complement-of B</em>, and <em>B is-complement-of A</em>, in a symmetrical fashion. In the particular case where the set P of properties of B is a struct superset of A's properties, then we say that <em>B is-complement-of A</em>, but in this case the opposite does not hold. In this case, the relation is not symmetric. (as a special case, A and B may not share any attributes at all, and yet the asserters may still stipulate that they are representing the same thing "Royal Society". The symmetric relation may hold trivially in this case).</p>
<p>The term <em>compatible</em> used above means that a mapping can be established amongst the values of attributes in P and found in the two entities. This is generalizes to the case where attribute sets P1 and P2 of A, and B, respectively, are not identical but they can be mapped to one another. The simplest case is the identity mapping, in which A and B share attribute set P, and furthermore the values assigned to attributes in P match exactly.</p>
@@ -1304,10 +1310,10 @@
-<p>In PROV-ASN, a complementarity expression's text matches the <span class="nonterminal">complementarity</span> production of the grammar defined in this specification document.</p>
+<p>In PROV-ASN, a complementarity expression's text matches the <span class="nonterminal">complementarityExpressoin</span> production of the grammar defined in this specification document.</p>
<div class='grammar'>
-<span class="nonterminal">complementarity</span> :=
+<span class="nonterminal">complementarityExpression</span> :=
<span class="name">wasComplementOf</span>
<span class="name">(</span>
<span class="nonterminal">identifier</span>
@@ -1318,7 +1324,7 @@
-<p>An instance of a complementarity expression, written <span class="name">wasComplementOf(e2,e1)</span>, where <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span> are two identifiers denoting entities.</p>
+<p>An instance of a complementarity expression, written <span class="name">wasComplementOf(e2,e1)</span>, where <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span> are two identifiers denoting entity expressions.</p>
<p>
<pre class="example">
@@ -1344,8 +1350,8 @@
<div class='constraint' id='wasComplementOf-necessary-cond'>
<a name="PIL:0013">An assertion "wasComplementOf(B,A)" holds over the temporal intersection of A and B, <span class='conditional'>only if</span>:
<ol>
-<li> if a mapping can be established from an attribute X of B to an attribute Y of A, then the values of A and B must be consistent with that mapping</em> </li>
- <li>B has some attribute that A does not have
+<li> if a mapping can be established from an attribute X of entity expression denoted by B to an attribute Y of entity expression denoted by A, then the values of A and B must be consistent with that mapping</em> </li>
+ <li>B has some attribute that A does not have.
</li></ol></a>
[<a href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0013">PIL:0013</a>]
</div>
@@ -1778,7 +1784,7 @@
<span class="nonterminal">qualifier</span> <br/>
<span class="nonterminal">generationQualifier</span> :=
<span class="nonterminal">qualifier</span> <br/>
-<span class="nonterminal">generationQualifier</span> :=
+<span class="nonterminal">controlQualifier</span> :=
<span class="nonterminal">qualifier</span> <br/>
<span class="nonterminal">qualifier</span> :=
<span class="nonterminal">attribute-values</span> <br/>