- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:29:17 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 12/05/11 09:16, Paul Groth wrote: > >> 2.) Processing step 4 says: "analyst (alice) downloads a turtle >> serialization (lcp1) ..." While I was trying to describe that fact, it >> felt strange that Alice was the agent/actor that accessed the server. >> Hence, I would say that Alice cannot download lcp1 directly, she must >> use >> an HTTP client software for that. Same for Bob in processing step 8. >> Should we add that to the example? > This is interesting. This is how I would want to model the example. > But I think it's clear that our language would have to support notions > exactly like "Alice downloaded a turtle file". This is the kind of > provenance that people say all the time and I think it behoves us to > figure out what we would need to support this kind of notion. This point is making a good case for two different views/accounts of execution: one more system oriented (with the http client) and one more user oriented. Luc
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 08:29:50 UTC