Why and Where¶
Buneman, P., Khanna, S., & Wang-Chiew, T. (2001). Why and Where: A Characterization of Data Provenance. Database Theory — ICDT 2001.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Provenance
- This asymmetry implies that metadata preservation is an investment decision: if I do not document now, verification later becomes probabilistic, costly, or impossible, an implication Buneman, Khanna, and Tan (2001) make precise in their why-and-where formal model of database provenance.
This sourceDistinguishes "why" provenance (source data influencing existence) from "where" provenance (location of extraction); foundational separation of provenance claims from their underlying evidence structures.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The source defines why-provenance (source data influencing existence) and where-provenance (extraction location), but says nothing about documentation as an investment or verification becoming costly.
“A novel aspect of our work is a distinction between {"}why{"} provenance (refers to the source data that had some influence on the existence of the data) and {"}where{"} provenance (refers to the location(s) in the source databases from which the data was extracted).”
- This asymmetry implies that metadata preservation is an investment decision: if I do not document now, verification later becomes probabilistic, costly, or impossible, an implication Buneman, Khanna, and Tan (2001) make precise in their why-and-where formal model of database provenance.
- Traceability
- It operates as both an operational capability and an audit trail: manufacturing lot tracking, code-to-requirements matrices, supply chain mapping, scientific data lineage, legal chain of custody, version control history, and pharmaceutical batch tracing all follow the same bidirectional linking logic.
This sourceDistinguishes "why" provenance (source data influencing existence) from "where" provenance (location of extraction); foundational separation of provenance claims from their underlying evidence structures.
- It operates as both an operational capability and an audit trail: manufacturing lot tracking, code-to-requirements matrices, supply chain mapping, scientific data lineage, legal chain of custody, version control history, and pharmaceutical batch tracing all follow the same bidirectional linking logic.
Mechanisms¶
- Common-Member Provenance Table
- It is a concrete instance of data provenance — the recorded lineage of where a data element came from and how it was derived.
This sourceDistinguishes where-provenance—where a result came from—from why-provenance—the input contributions that explain why it appears.
- It is a concrete instance of data provenance — the recorded lineage of where a data element came from and how it was derived.
- Data Lineage Record
- Column-level lineage
This sourceDefines where-provenance so an output value can be traced to the specific input location from which it was copied.
- Column-level lineage
- Self-Effect Annotation Layer
- It keeps data provenance — the traceable record of where each part of a signal came from — intact.
This sourceDefines data provenance as a traceable account of data origins and the source locations that contributed to particular output values.
- It keeps data provenance — the traceable record of where each part of a signal came from — intact.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 5 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:fa7dd27b31b1 · see in the full table