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

Re: unchewed gum and coupons

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:32:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnkknvjY=km3Y8QfYg4AmpkDAz4hpPxwpjbssfmMHrfAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 14:16, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

>> So the consumption means the entity can't be used/involved with
>> anything after that - what is then the (later) expiration?
> That the entity can't be used/involved with anything after the given time (independent of any consumption).

Reasonable, but is that not out of scope for PROV? That is a plan, or
intended life time. It is like saying the work activity should stop at
17:00, however it lasted until 19:15.


Consumption means there needs to be an activity to consume it. Is that
why you need Expiration - to avoid having an expiration activity for
entity that self-destruct?


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea about consumption, it should cover
very well the use-cases where an activity changes a thing so that it
is no longer characterizable as the old entity, for instance
:dinnerOnPlate :(was)ConsumedBy :Stian - there is no :dinnerOnPlate
after that.

But would it also cover the cases where the activity is ambiguous or
unknown, like if we merge expiration and consumption?


The example on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/eb6cee9c5495/examples/eg-20-collections-exercise/rdf/eg-20-collections-exercise.ttl
 is a bit confusing - why would the offer only be consumed by Paolo?
Perhaps it's a voucher you are describing?

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 13:33:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT