- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:44:16 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > The approver is not the asserter. I don't understand what the problem is. good point. Then forget about accounts and my suggestion in the issue… More generally, how should one model responsibility on derivations? I closed this issue, as my concern is covered by ISSUE-356 (ongoing). Regards, Tim > > 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 Friday, 20 April 2012 17:45:09 UTC