W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:48:38 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTin7yKfxYc3YTwcv4qbtM1333eVPDA@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:32 GMT