- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:10:06 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|dd165921c8d155f95f90e585f04c545enBI9A908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EEEFF6E>
Hi Tim, All interpretation constraints have now been illustrated and presented in section http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#interpretation I think the constraint is correctly expressed, since the record wasStartedBy(a2,a1) does not identify the entity e, and its generation event. If we had made it explicit, then yes, what you suggest is probably right. I don't think any further change is required, and I propose to close the issue, pending review. Regards, Luc On 12/02/2011 04:19 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-178 (TLebo): wasStartedBy constraint between started and generated entity [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/178 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: prov-dm > > Should an additional constraint be added to wasStartedBy-ordering's interpretation constraint? It currently reads: > > "Given two activity records denoted by a1 and a2, if the record wasStartedBy(a2,a1) holds, then the following temporal constraint holds: the start event of the activity record denoted by a1 precedes the start event of the activity record denoted by a2." > > but says nothing about the start event of a2 following the generation event of e. > > A diagram of the constraint is available at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e0d6f1a69062/diagrams/activity-ordering-records-control-ordering-record.png > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > -- 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 Monday, 19 December 2011 09:12:59 UTC