Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model]

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.


Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 09:20:19 UTC