- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:12:53 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim, The latest WD contains wasInformedBy-ordering listing the temporal constraint associated with wasInformedBy. I am proposing to close the issue pending review. Regards, Luc On 11/21/2011 04:07 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > You're right, a temporal interpretation constraint is missing. > I have added an explicit issue in the text. Hopefully, I will add it > later this week. > Luc > > On 11/21/2011 03:06 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-156 (TLebo): information flow ordering record - no temporal constraints? [Data Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/156 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: Data Model >> >> According to 6.3 Activity Ordering Record >> >> "wasInformedBy" is: >> >> "An information flow ordering record is a representation that an entity was generated by an activity, before it was used by another activity." >> >> But the only constraint does not include the temporal aspects described above: >> >> "Given two activity records identified by a1 and a2, the record wasInformedBy(a2,a1) holds, if and only if there is an entity record identified by e and sets of attribute-value pairs attrs1 and attrs2, such that wasGeneratedBy(e,a1,attrs1) and used(a2,e,attrs2) hold." >> >> >> Does the temporal constraint fall out of constraints that apply to wasGeneratedBy and used? >> * If so, could this be made explicit? >> * If not, can "attrs1" and "attrs2" be elaborated to include the "time used" and "time generated" AND their constrained ordering? >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- 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 13:13:34 UTC