- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:38:19 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I have noticed the new distinctions using "interpretation" in the latest draft, and it has made it easier to see the difference. With regard to "moving all constraints to one section", I'm curious to see if this makes it more difficult to read and understand any one construct. I'll wait and see! Regards, Tim On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > Yes, to confirm, we will make the change, but it will be in the third working draft. > This said, the current document, already introduces 'interpretation' , wherever appropriate. > > Luc > > On 11/29/2011 09:21 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: >> Tim >> >> it does exist. Indeed there are numerous constraints that I call "non-actionable", such as "traceability assertion" for example, which describe semantics but cannot be used to make new assertions, or even to check consistency. >> >> There is a proposal to push all constraints into a separate section, and in that setting it will be easier to make this distinction. >> >> -Paolo >> >> >> On 11/22/11 7:58 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> Luc and Paolo, >>> >>> Does this distinction among constraints still exist? >>> >>> If so, could/is it described in the latest DM? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> We are proposing to make a distinction between >>>>> - inferences >>>>> - so-called constraints that are there for the purpose of interpretation >>>>> - constraints that need to be enforced in the data model to be "well formed". >> >> > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > > >
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 00:38:50 UTC