- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:54:21 +0000
- To: Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|34b19855de77a23c97268c15cc8922deo0BFsO08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F0F022D>
Also closed, thanks Satya. Luc On 01/11/2012 09:34 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote: > Hi Luc, > I am comfortable with closing this issue. > > Thanks. > > Best, > Satya > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > > Hi Satya and Tim, > > I am now closing this issue, pending review. > Constraints for attributes were removed in WD2, and > interpretations have > now been moved in a separate section, clarifying the issue flagged > here. > > Feel free to reopen, if the issue is not addressed satisfactorily. > > Cheers, > Luc > > > On 12/03/2011 12:38 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > I have noticed the new distinctions using "interpretation" in > the latest draft, and it has made it easier to see the difference. > > With regard to "moving all constraints to one section", I'm > curious to see if this makes it more difficult to read and > understand any one construct. > > I'll wait and see! > > Regards, > Tim > > > On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > > Hi Tim, > Yes, to confirm, we will make the change, but it will be > in the third working draft. > This said, the current document, already introduces > 'interpretation' , wherever appropriate. > > Luc > > On 11/29/2011 09:21 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > > Tim > > it does exist. Indeed there are numerous constraints > that I call "non-actionable", such as "traceability > assertion" for example, which describe semantics but > cannot be used to make new assertions, or even to > check consistency. > > There is a proposal to push all constraints into a > separate section, and in that setting it will be > easier to make this distinction. > > -Paolo > > > On 11/22/11 7:58 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > Luc and Paolo, > > Does this distinction among constraints still exist? > > If so, could/is it described in the latest DM? > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > > We are proposing to make a distinction > between > > - inferences > - so-called constraints that are there for > the purpose of interpretation > - constraints that need to be enforced in > the data model to be "well formed". > > > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: > l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > > > > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487> > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865> > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> > > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 15:55:09 UTC