- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:29:40 -0500
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stephan, Thanks for your suggestions. see within. On Nov 6, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > Hi Tim, Daniel, Satya, > > I reviewed the Qualified Involvements wiki page and I think it looks really good. I think it may be beneficial to also work some time examples into the qualifiers, or an example of an extension of the qualifiers beyond just roles. I added two new (stub) subsections to each qualified use. I hope this strikes a good balance of keeping simple and providing enough detail. www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O > I think qualifiers are a really important part of the model with use that far exceeds just roles, and that should be highlighted by this document. Agreed. > > We can just be sure to bring it up in the telecon tomorrow and add any further qualifiers into the examples later. > > Also, I think the statement that Generation is a "pointing to the future" qualification may be something of a lightening rod, especially since this is a provenance model where we only intend to describe things that have actually happened. I get what you are trying to say, but I wonder if there is not a better term we can use here? > > Perhaps "result" ? > > Generation describes a "result" of a process execution whereas Usage, Participation, and Control describe "drivers" on a process execution? Or things that "affect" a process execution? > > affect vs result? Very good point. It should be rephrased. I inserted a TODO on the document. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 15:37:38 UTC