- From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:17:39 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Luc, Jim, I notice that you two take different views on what the concept "version" is intended to describe. With the example things: T1. The government data T2. The government data with incorrect values T3. The government data with corrected values Under Luc's definition T3 is a version of T2, but under Jim's definition T3 is a version of T1. I'm not clear that "version", under either definition, is beneficial to keep in the model. Jim's definition seems to be only subtley if at all different from IPVT, while Luc's is distinct but just a simple composition of other concepts which could be recognised by any query. My counter-proposal would be to remove "version" from the model. Simplicity of the standard is surely a good thing where possible. If that is unacceptable, I think that Luc's definition makes sense but would be more clearly called "is revision of" or similar. Thanks, Simon On 27 June 2011 16:11, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Exploiting the most recent definitions of Derivation and IVP of, I tried > to propose a definition of version. > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptVersion#Definition_by_Luc > > What do you think? > Regards, > Luc > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- Dr Simon Miles Lecturer, Department of Informatics Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK +44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 14:18:15 UTC