- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:14:15 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Tim the whole section needs more work IMO -Paolo On 11/21/11 7:26 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 08:14:43 UTC