PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model] from Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker on 2011-07-29 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from July 2011)

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:07:46 +0000
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qmj2o-0000a2-S1@stu.w3.org>

PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/61

Raised by: Graham Klyne
On product: Conceptual Model



5.14 Revision

This seems to be just a different form of Derivation that happens to
mention an agent.  I'm not sure why I'd choose one over the other.

I think this may be unnecessary - would not a similar effect be
achieved by having a process execution of "revision" that uses b1,
generates b2 and is controlled by ag (possibly with role "revise"?).

Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 09:07:50 UTC