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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:24:15 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0584a5c0443d83a26d50dad779ef4b18n8MCP308l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E7C6C5F.9010103@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Paul,

What should we do about ISSUE-42 and ISSUE-43. Are they still relevant?

Can they be closed?

Thanks,
Luc

On 22/08/2011 22:16, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Given the current document, is this issue still relevant?
> If yes, are we referring to isDerivedFrom?
> Which time (more precisely event) do you have in mind? use event? 
> generation event?
> associated process start event, associated process end event?
> potentially a combination of all the above?
>
> Luc
>
> On 23/07/11 16:46, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have  associated 
>> time [Conceptual Model]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43
>>
>> Raised by: Paul Groth
>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>
>> Other relationships have time associated with them (e.g. use, 
>> generation, control)
>>
>> There is no optional time associated with derivation.
>>
>> Suggested resolution is to add the following to the definition of 
>> isDerivedFrom:
>>
>> -  May contain a "derived from time" t, the time or time intervals 
>> when b1 was derived from b2
>>
>> Example:
>> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2, t)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 11:25:31 GMT

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