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

Re: unchewed gum and coupons

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRoCX5LjBV3boHsgGGw0kR313vzEZpJzku-W8zrKaBqrjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim & Curt

+1. Consumption should state an MUST not be used after it consumption occurred.

Paul

>> 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
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 14:33:41 GMT

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