W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-DM structural constraints

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:43:59 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|88a6b1be8c341278b03b621ab902889enBL7jJ08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EF2DFBF.6000504@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC