- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:40:06 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim, Yes, to confirm, we will make the change, but it will be in the third working draft. This said, the current document, already introduces 'interpretation' , wherever appropriate. Luc On 11/29/2011 09:21 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > Tim > > it does exist. Indeed there are numerous constraints that I call > "non-actionable", such as "traceability assertion" for example, which > describe semantics but cannot be used to make new assertions, or even > to check consistency. > > There is a proposal to push all constraints into a separate section, > and in that setting it will be easier to make this distinction. > > -Paolo > > > On 11/22/11 7:58 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> Luc and Paolo, >> >> Does this distinction among constraints still exist? >> >> If so, could/is it described in the latest DM? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >>>>> We are proposing to make a distinction between >>>> - inferences >>>> - so-called constraints that are there for the purpose of >>>> interpretation >>>> - constraints that need to be enforced in the data model to be >>>> "well formed". > > -- 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 Tuesday, 29 November 2011 09:40:35 UTC