- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 22:44:29 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, We need to explore this in detail. To me, it is crucial to be able to assert that entity e1 in account acc1 is complementOf entity e2 in acc2. How do you propose doing this? Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 6 Nov 2011, at 21:24, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > By "appropriately scoped", I mean "predefined, consciously selected; URIs". > > the note "refer to an identifier in the scope of a given account" sounds like we are going to permit lazy naming that can be computed in the future, which current named graph implementations do not support. > > -Tim > > > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Tim, >> >> What do you mean by appropriately scoped? >> >> Luc >> >> >> >> I propose that we require the asserters to define appropriately-scoped URIs for their identifiers. Letting them be lazy up front will cause headaches when actually trying to use it. >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 22:45:31 UTC