Re: PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model] from Luc Moreau on 2011-08-22 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from August 2011)

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:10:16 +0100
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b04961c8dc29f304140d92c1aebf330fn7LMAP08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E52C5B8>

Hi Graham,
This issue was closed, pending review.
Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we
close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it,
or create a more specific issue.
Thanks,
Luc

PS See note on this issue's page



On 29/07/11 10:07, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/61
>
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
>
> 5.14 Revision
>
> This seems to be just a different form of Derivation that happens to
> mention an agent.  I'm not sure why I'd choose one over the other.
>
> I think this may be unnecessary - would not a similar effect be
> achieved by having a process execution of "revision" that uses b1,
> generates b2 and is controlled by ag (possibly with role "revise"?).
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:10:53 UTC