- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:43:59 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 07:45:58 UTC
Hi Stian, yes, i realised this is not specified. So, please raise an issue so that we remember to tackle it after Xmas. It is intended to be a reflexive relation too. Luc On 22/12/11 07:01, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 2011 6:52 AM, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: > > > We have created a new section in which we discuss "structural > constraints" such as > > generation-unicity. > > This reads very well! I also like having this as separate section. > > I have one question (I might raise it as an issue of you like): > > the term "precedes" is used alot, but it is not clear if this is > inclusive or exclusive, ie can say x precede y by 0 seconds? > > If not, then we are forcing a non-zero duration between say generation > time and use time, which in most cases would be true, but not always > measurable (both might be recorded with same time) > > In other (more conceptual) approaches this would not allow instant > durations such as "luc-aged-20" derived from "luc-aged-19" (the > increment activity here took 0s - or 1y if you like). >
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 07:45:58 UTC