- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:07:40 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim, You're right, a temporal interpretation constraint is missing. I have added an explicit issue in the text. Hopefully, I will add it later this week. Luc On 11/21/2011 03:06 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-156 (TLebo): information flow ordering record - no temporal constraints? [Data Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/156 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: Data Model > > According to 6.3 Activity Ordering Record > > "wasInformedBy" is: > > "An information flow ordering record is a representation that an entity was generated by an activity, before it was used by another activity." > > But the only constraint does not include the temporal aspects described above: > > "Given two activity records identified by a1 and a2, the record wasInformedBy(a2,a1) holds, if and only if there is an entity record identified by e and sets of attribute-value pairs attrs1 and attrs2, such that wasGeneratedBy(e,a1,attrs1) and used(a2,e,attrs2) hold." > > > Does the temporal constraint fall out of constraints that apply to wasGeneratedBy and used? > * If so, could this be made explicit? > * If not, can "attrs1" and "attrs2" be elaborated to include the "time used" and "time generated" AND their constrained ordering? > > Thanks, > Tim > > > > > -- 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
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 16:08:27 UTC