W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-160 (TLebo): Redundant terminology in new wasDerivedFrom classification scheme [Data Model]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:26:44 -0500
Message-Id: <A3E6AC73-1869-4A4D-964F-77A3F7B767E6@rpi.edu>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC