- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:16:25 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
What about "Provenance assertions are about activities that have occurred, or are currently occurring, and the entities involved in such activities." I am not sure we gain much by restricting them to be non-dynamic. We can't enforce this from a technological standpoint, and it suggests that inaccurate provenance assertions cannot be corrected. --Stephan On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > I take your point about pre-determined. "Determined" sounds a bit to me like a willful agent. > > How about "completed". I think this suggests past activities without completely excluding fictional accounts of future activities. > > #g > -- > > On 23/11/2011 15:29, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-164 (TLebo): pre-determined versus determined [Accessing and Querying Provenance] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/164 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance >> >> In http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html : >> >> "Provenance assertions are about pre-determined activities involving entities; as such, they are not dynamic." >> >> >> Is there something special about pre-determined that would be different from "determined"? >> >> Could "pre-" be safely removed without losing meaning? It's not that we knew what was going to happen -- only that they already have happened, no? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 18:16:52 UTC