- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:26:44 -0500
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Paolo/Luc, perhaps "single activity" could replace the term "first-degree" and "multiple activity" could replace the term "degree-n"? I still don't see the distinction between "precise" and "imprecise". Is this trying to express an amount of elaboration? -Tim On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > PROV-ISSUE-160 (TLebo): Redundant terminology in new wasDerivedFrom classification scheme [Data Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/160 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: Data Model > > [1] introduces a new classification scheme for wasDerivedFrom using two characteristics: > > 1) the number of activities that lead to a derivation > 2) a level of "precision" i.e., the amount of description provided. > > > A) I propose to reduce the amount of redundant terms used to define derivation, so that the definitions may be clearer. > > choose one: imprecise XOR lax > choose one: precise XOR exact > choose one: number of activities XOR degree > > > B) The previous versions' use of "Qualified" was a natural way to distinguish the simple descriptions from their more elaborate forms. Why did that seem to go away? > > Regards, > Tim > > > > > [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/308f9e30cc7e/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation > > > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 19:27:22 UTC