- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:04:30 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
OK. To resolve ISSUE-469, I will remove "strictly" in generation-precedes-invalidation. Marked pending review. --James On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> I think this is a typo; we meant for the only strict orderings to be the two involving derivation. >> Easy to fix by removing "strictly" if you agree. > > I agree, although I would only keep the one about wasGen(e1) strictly > preceeding wasGen(e2) in the derivation, not the usage strictly > preceeding generation, which I see no reasoning for. > > This is ISSUE-470. > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 16:05:01 UTC