- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:10:46 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
I have the same "MUSt->SHOULD" problem as for ISSUE-40: maybe complement this indication with best practice guidelines? as informative only. For our part, I think we should add an example to justify why this restriction is useful -Paolo > Currently, use has the following definition with respect to roles: > > "A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use > assertions must have a distinct role." > > A process execution could conceivably read the same file twice. Thus, the file would play the same role twice with respect to a > process execution. It's not clear why this constraint is an absolute or the impact of making it a non-hard requirement. > > Although, I can see why it would be recommended practice in order to ensure disambiguation of roles. > > Suggested resolution, change the sentence to as follows: > > "A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use > assertions should have a distinct role." -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 11:11:09 UTC