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

Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:10:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0713A3.1090907@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Pgroth <pgroth@gmail.com>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I would say you can talk about the provenance of that view. But, to be clear, the fact that some properties are "declared" to be 
fixed (constant), for example by saying that "the creator is {invariant, immutable, constant,...}",  should have nothing to do with 
provenance.  It's in the semantics of the "thing" and its properties, I hope we agree on this? In a data model, one would enforce a 
constraint to avoid "creator" being updated, to reflect the intended semantics of the property. Is this what we mean by "fixed"?  
And even then, that's assuming too much already: updates to "creator" may be acceptable if the original value is found to be wrong, 
for example.

-Paolo

On 6/26/11 9:56 AM, Pgroth wrote:
> For my clarification, once an asseter  has an invariant view of some stuff the asserter can talk about the stuff's provenance with respect to the set of properties that have been declared fixed?
>
> Thanks
> Paul
Received on Sunday, 26 June 2011 11:11:02 GMT

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