- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:28:47 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:14, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > We could have an extra inference rule, > > d2 is a revision of d1 > c1 isDerivedFrom d1 (by specific transformation t) > c2 is derivedFrom d2 (by same specific transformation t) > > then c2 is a revision of c1 Hmm.. I think that shows that it's difficult to include the transitivity of revisions to our definition. How do you know it's the "same transformation"? They would most likely be two different process executions. You venture into the land of describing the recipe for the execution - and would need to distinguish purely transformational processes (shims?) from processes which are note purely functional and would not always give the same outputs. I think we can keep your definition - by allowing the asserter to specifically say A is a revision of B she can shortcut all these tricky bits. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:29:35 UTC