Re: PROV-ISSUE-341 (revision-approver): revision approver - why? [prov-dm]

Hi Tim,
The approver is not the asserter.  I don't understand what the problem is.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 11 Apr 2012, at 19:53, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> It appears so.
> 
> What was the resolution to that?
> Because the problem Simon describes is still in the draft.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tim,
>> 
>> Isn't it ISSUE-149 raised by Simon?
>> 
>> PS: the idea of removing agency from the Derivation component seems appealing!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton 
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>> 
>> On 10 Apr 2012, at 22:07, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> PROV-ISSUE-341 (revision-approver): revision approver - why? [prov-dm]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/341
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>> 
>>> 4.3.2
>>> 
>>> "responsibility: an optional  identifier (ag) for the agent who approved the newer entity as a variant of the older;"
>>> 
>>> ^^^ this seems more appropriately modeled as an account, not stuck as part of the underlying model.
>>> 
>>> Revision should "just be", and if one wants to know who says that "it just is", we should use accounts to answer.
>>> 
>>> The same experience that we used to remove "agent asserting an account" from "account" should be reapplied to this parameter as well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 21:23:29 UTC