]> 2012-05-27T21:28:14-04:00 James Michaelis Provenance Model Jesse Weaver On page 5, Definition 8 states: "An edge 'was derived from' between two artifacts A1 and A2 indicates that artifact A1 may have been used by a process that derived A2." This definition seems surprisingly weak. The phrase "A1 may have been used by a process that derived A2" seems to indicate that A1 may not have been used by a process that derived A2. Therefore, the edge "was derived from" is not necessarily causal. Upon further investigation, it seems that the wording of the definition may have been chosen to satisfy inference 5 on page 17 to cover the case in which A1=A2 and, indeed, there may be no process in the derivation. However, wouldn't a more precise wording of Definition 8 be more appropriate? Perhaps maybe something like: An edge "was derived from" between two artifacts A1 and A2 indicates that artifact A1 was used by a process that derived A2, or that A1 and A2 are the same artifact. James Michaelis Provenance Model Question for the Presentation Jesse Weaver Question asked by Question asked Presentation Questions