- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:50:42 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
We are proposing to close this issue, pending review. The latest version of the document states that: Location is an OPTIONAL attribute of entity expressions and process execution expressions. Feel free to reopen it, if you feel this is not right. Regards, Luc On 06/09/2011 12:47, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-91 (what-to-define-for-location): what should we define under the heading 'location' [Conceptual Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/91 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: Conceptual Model > > We have received little input and there has been barely any discussion on location. > The current text is essentially copied from the wiki and is not aligned with the rest of the model. > > So, can entities have location? If so, should location appear as an attribute of an entity? > So, should PIDM define some core attributes? or should this be left to a generic profile? > > What about process executions? PIDM does not have "attribute" for PEs. So, do we need to define a relation hasLocation? > > Is location unique for an entity/pe? > > Can people who have interest in location for provenance provide us with some guidance, so that we can write something sensible for the FPWD. > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 10:51:59 UTC