- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:28:58 +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 10:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> I either don't understand or don't agree with the second part of that >> description. The notion of assigning values as party of an assertion >> seems wrong to me (I think the notion of constraining attributes is >> the job of the IVP-of relation). I would expect something like: >> >> [[ A provenance assertion is made at a particular point and is >> invariant, in the sense that the attributes it mentions do not change >> for the entity concerned. ]] >> >> > > Another important point you raise, at the heart of the model. > > First I believe the draft is inline with all discussions and wiki pages > on this context. With which I believe I've consistently disagreed :) (I lack the personal context to give chapter and verse on this.) > Are you saying that, in the proposed example, that you would have BOBs > of the form: > > bob(id, [ type, location, creator, content]) > > where type/location/creator/content are attributes, but no value > specified for them. > > To me, what you propose here is more akin to a type/class declaration, > and not so much of a snapshot/state/BOB, > as characterized by an asserter. Maybe that's is closer to what I feel. > How would you rewrite this example with your notion of BOB? A fair question. Now where's that example... There's not enough context here to find it right now, but I really need to revisit this and respond. #g --
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 08:41:57 UTC