- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:09:32 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon, I don't think it's possible to explain all concepts sequentially, since many are dependent on each other. It is the case that it doesn't make much sense, in this model, for multiple PEs to generate a given entity (see text preceding generation-unicity). However, we can't prevent asserters to assert multiple such assertions. Hence, we define a property on well-formed-ness of accounts. I don't understand your multiple granularities. Can you explain? Luc On 10/10/2011 17:42, Simon Miles wrote: > I can't see what it would mean without knowledge of accounts, or how > it could be "correct without qualification". Surely it is simply not > true that only one PE can generate an entity independently of > accounts? Why do we not allow multiple granularities of description? >
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 21:10:06 UTC