Re: PROV-ISSUE-122: Constraint on wasGeneratedBy (PROV-DM and PROV-OM) [Conceptual Model]

Well, then there is still an issue because the constraint can be
misinterpreted or hard to understand.

I believe this is due to the constraint (as such) is trying to be overly
precise, but looses the actual meaning on the way.

"e must have been generated sometime during pe" should suffice.
On Oct 12, 2011 10:09 PM, "Satya Sahoo" <satya.sahoo@case.edu> wrote:

> Hi Paolo, Stian, Luc,
> Paolo is right, I misread the constraint. I withdraw the issue for the
> "generation-pe-ordering" constraint.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> Hi Satya,
>> I don't see the issue here. Can you clarify?
>> Thanks,
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/11 14:40, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 00:26, Satya Sahoo<satya.sahoo@case.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> Sorry about the mixup!
>>>> Constraint on wasGeneratedBy property (in PROV-DM document on Oct 10,
>>>> 2011):
>>>> "If an assertion wasGeneratedBy(x,pe,q) or wasGeneratedBy(x,pe,q,t),
>>>> then
>>>> generation of the thing denoted by x precedes the end of pe and follows
>>>> the
>>>> beginning of pe."
>>>>
>>>> Issue: An entity e may be generated before the end of pe, for example
>>>> a manufacturing PE can generate multiple entities before terminating.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's exactly what the constraint allows. The entity generated by PE
>>> can't be generated *before* the PE started  ("generation follows
>>> beginning of pe") , nor *after* the PE ended  ("generation precedes
>>> the end of pe").  I think the problem is just that the constraint is
>>> quite hard to read because it takes the positive approach instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>