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

RE: Roles

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:06:45 +0000
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC230310A9@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>
+1. I'm not sure where absorbing will cause problems, but it does feel like a stretch,  and it would expand the use of multiple entities and complementOf into the middle of everything (i.e. you'd have to use it for the immutable/OPM-style cases, not just when you have to document mutability).
Jim

From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Missier
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:01 PM
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Roles

Hi Luc,

yes, and that was indeed in part my point: if the qualifiers logically "belong" with both sides, then you can't play this game of "absorbing" them on one side, can you.  They logically belong where the data and the process meet, i.e., in neither "per se". There are bound to be cases like this.

-Paolo

On 9/15/11 6:18 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

Hi Paolo,

I don't understand why, in your example,

wasGeneratedBy(e1 WITH {port="p1", order=1}, pe1,t1)

the qualifier {port="p1", order=1} is "linked" with the entity,
it's also relevant to the pe ... after all, emitting data on port p1.

Luc
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 13:07:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT