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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:50:42 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|43af46d9bf5feef738ddcc1d57727a59n8MBpV08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E7C6482.8090404@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

We are proposing to close this issue, pending review.
The latest version of the document states that:

Location is an OPTIONAL attribute of entity expressions and process 
execution expressions.

Feel free to reopen it, if you feel this is not right.
Regards,
Luc

On 06/09/2011 12:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/91
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
> We have received little input and there has been barely any discussion on location.
> The current text is essentially copied from the wiki and is not aligned with the rest of the model.
>
> So, can entities have location?  If so, should location appear as an attribute of an entity?
> So, should PIDM define some core attributes? or should this be left to a generic profile?
>
> What about process executions? PIDM does not have "attribute" for PEs. So, do we need to define a relation hasLocation?
>
> Is location unique for an entity/pe?
>
> Can people who have interest in location for provenance provide us with some guidance, so that we can write something sensible for the FPWD.
>
>
>
>
>
>    
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 10:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT