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

Re: unchewed gum and coupons

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:19:00 -0400
Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3275B272-4F47-4F32-BF4D-4092036DE0E2@rpi.edu>
To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>

On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:

> On 03/30/2012 09:32 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I think you are both hitting the right issue.
> 
> There is a difference between saying something shouldn't be used and
> saying it can't be used (i.e. it is impossible for it to have been
> used).
> 
> I agree -- we want to handle the later case, not the former.

Well stated! 
I agree, "can't be used" is much more fundamental and appropriate in PROV.

We should leave "shouldn't be used" for the application domains and extensions.

-Tim


> 
> Curt
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 14:19:34 GMT

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