W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-105: 5.3.1 Generation (current version of the conceptual model document) [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:22:14 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b8bc0f2d69e9e6e2625c3d44819508e3o0GAMG08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F154BD6.4090303@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian,

Response below.

On 01/17/2012 10:14 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 23:21, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> Exactly. I am not sure why is it necessary for generation of x to precede
>>> end of pe since they can share the same event or time value? For example, it
>>> is fairly common to state "the car production ended with the production of
>>> car c1 at 10:00am on Dec 7."
>> The constraint is just stating that  generation occurs during the duration
>> of the activity. I don't see how it can occur before or after the activity.
> What Satya is pointing out that "a precedes b" reads like
>    t(a)<  t(b)
> not
>    t(a)<= t(b)
> I (and obviously Satya) think there's a good case for all
> time-boundaries in PROV to be inclusive, other wise you are forced to
> add a tiny time delta between the last generation time and the end of
> the activity. (Or in a push-model, between the first usage time and
> activity start).  It would also force all durations to be non-zero,
> which in some models would not make sense.
I had already agreed on this a while back. I have just made the change,


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 Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:22:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC