- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:33:15 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Graham, > > On 07/29/2011 10:13 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> [[ >> A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that >> refer to a given process execution, but each of those use assertions >> must have a distinct role. >> ]] >> In light of the above, this seems nonsensical to me. >> >> > > > I am trying to understand what the issue is. > > We're trying to say: > > For any b, bob(b,[...]) > For any pe, processExecution(pe) > > for any two assertions use(pe,b,r1,t1) and use(pe,b,r2,t2), then > r1 <> r2 > > Is there a problem with this? I now understand what you are trying to express. Is there a problem? I don't know, because I don't properly understand what purpose "role" is serving here. Does anything actually break if this requirement is dropped? I.e. if it's OK to say: use(pe,b,r1,t1) AND use(pe,b,r1,t2) #g
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 08:41:47 UTC