- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:15:02 +0200
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I just don't see this as a justification for MUST instead of SHOULD. What does it gain us? Paul Luc Moreau wrote: > In most programming languages, there is a requirement that > parameters names are unique in a procedure/function/method. > > (Java says if two formal parameters are declared to have the same name, > then a compile-time error occurs) > > The role unicity constraint is similar. > > > Luc > > On 07/23/2011 03:21 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/41 >> >> Raised by: Paul Groth >> On product: Conceptual Model >> >> Currently, use has the following definition with respect to roles: >> >> "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." >> >> A process execution could conceivably read the same file twice. Thus, the file would play the same role twice with respect to a process execution. It's not clear why this constraint is an absolute or the impact of making it a non-hard requirement. >> >> Although, I can see why it would be recommended practice in order to ensure disambiguation of roles. >> >> Suggested resolution, change the sentence to as follows: >> >> "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 should have a distinct role." >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 09:17:47 UTC