RE: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition from Myers, Jim on 2011-06-24 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from June 2011)

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:01:47 -0400
To: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF20534A595@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>

> 
> Agreed. :-)  Although it would also be part of establishing trust to also see
> what was NOT done (eg. "Sterilize the microscope plate") - but knowledge of
> what 'should have been done' is clearly out of scope.
> Considering what DID happen would typically be compared to the known
> practice/procedure/workflow/etc - and our provenance model would have
> enough information to answer queries to validate that side of the story.

And to establish the 'recipe link' from the provenance to the procedure...

Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 17:03:07 UTC