- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:46:43 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon and Graham, We are now formally closing this issue. It is now superseded, since with the introduction of identifiers for usage/generation, we no longer need this requirement of qualifier uniqueness. Regards, Luc On 09/23/2011 11:57 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > The latest version of the document addresses your comments. > The circumstances when qualifiers are required to be unique (for > annotation, for expressing pe-linked-derivations) > have been made explicit. > > We believe this solves this issue, which has now been closed, pending > review. > Feel free to re-open if you feel the the answer is inadequate. > > Cheers, > Luc > > On 09/09/2011 15:21, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On 09/09/2011 02:59 PM, Simon Miles wrote: >>> Hi Luc, >>> >>>> I may not have been clear. I think that the requirement of roles to >>>> define derivation is a stronger justification than data structure >>>> uniformity. >>> OK. I think this raises three sub-issues: (i) that is not the >>> justification for mandatory roles currently given in the text; (ii) >> Yes, text would need to be change >> >>> the use of roles in derivation assertions sounds like role types >>> rather than role names, i.e. there appears to be no necessity for the >> no, in derivation, it's definitely role names you need, and unicity >> is required. >>> roles mentioned to be unique; (iii) roles are optional in derivation >>> assertions, so it seems odd that this be a rationale for them being >>> mandatory in other assertions. >> optional to assert, but they do exist, as per inference. >> exactly like in use, roles are optional to assert >>>> You still seem not to take into account the optional nature of >>>> asserting >>>> roles. Maybe, it's a question of presentation in the document. But >>>> ultimately, we are >>>> telling people you are free not to express roles. Under the bonnet, >>>> there >>>> will be an unspecified role. I don't understand what the problem is >>>> with >>>> this approach, where a default value is provided. >>> My problem with this approach is that I am unclear what "under the >>> bonnet" really means. I also agree with Graham's point that, whatever >>> it is, I don't know whether we should be standardising it. >>> >> forget this sentence, sorry. >> I meant to say that not asserting a role is defined as asserting a role >> in the set "unspecified". >>> Regardless of any of the above, I still think the opaqueness of "Roles >>> are mandatory since they allow for uniform data structures" is the >>> most pressing issue. I think it answers a necessary question (why >>> mandatory?) but in an unhelpful way. >> We would drop this statement, since derivation is a better >> justification. >> >> Luc >>> Thanks, >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> On 5 September 2011 10:20, Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >>>> On 05/09/2011 08:17, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> You still seem not to take into account the optional nature of >>>>> asserting >>>>> roles. Maybe, it's a question of presentation in the document. But >>>>> ultimately, >>>>> we are >>>>> telling people you are free not to express roles. Under the >>>>> bonnet, there >>>>> will be an unspecified role. I don't understand what the problem >>>>> is with >>>>> this approach, where a default value is provided. >>>> I think there may be a mismatch here between designing a *system* >>>> and defining a >>>> *standard* - the point of a standard is to specify what is visibly >>>> exchanged >>>> between systems. >>>> >>>> In particular, if the role is optional, then it is unhelpful to say >>>> "Under the >>>> bonnet, there will be an unspecified role", because what exists >>>> "under the >>>> bonnet" is exactly an implementation choice. If I write a system >>>> that uses >>>> provenance information in a limited fashion that never involves >>>> roles (which is >>>> OK, as you have said they are optional), then there is no >>>> unspecified role under >>>> the bonnet. >>>> >>>> Thus, if the presence of a role is optional in the exchange of >>>> provenance >>>> information, then I think it should be optional in the model, as it >>>> is the >>>> exchangeable provenance information that we need to model here. >>>> Maybe, as you >>>> say, this is simply a matter of choosing appropriate phrasing. >>>> >>>> #g >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- 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 Wednesday, 30 November 2011 11:47:28 UTC