- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:48:38 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:14, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > Your comment raises a question of scope... (..) > What you raise, I think, is a use of provenance as part of establishing > blame rather than trust. I think this is a separate issue that (for the > time being at least) we should not dig into. Agreed. :-) Although it would also be part of establishing trust to also see what was NOT done (eg. "Sterilize the microscope plate") - but knowledge of what 'should have been done' is clearly out of scope. Considering what DID happen would typically be compared to the known practice/procedure/workflow/etc - and our provenance model would have enough information to answer queries to validate that side of the story. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 13:49:25 UTC