- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:23:53 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Dear all, It looks like, given the recent emails on this topic, we are again unable to close this issue. Paul and I are very clear that the F2F2 resolution [1] should be applied here. We are therefore setting a deadline to gain some consensus on this issue. As chairs, we would like to see a revised text [section 4.4, [2]] by Wednesday 18th, on which we can take a vote. Tomorrow, at the teleconference, I will be looking for someone to lead the editing of this section. Regards, Luc [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-02#resolution_1 [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component4 On 02/04/2012 22:29, Luc Moreau wrote: > Dear all, > > With the release of the documents, we are proposing again to close > this issue pending review. > > Feel free to reopen if WD5 does not address your concerns. > Regards, > Luc > > On 11/07/11 12:22, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each >> other [Conceptual Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29 >> >> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell >> On product: Conceptual Model >> >> >> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the >> possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other - >> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)& (A IVPof B), >> and this is surely not intended. >> >> This could arise if, for bobs A, B : >> - A and B both represent the same entity >> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have >> corresponding values. >> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable >> properties of A >> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable >> properties of B >> >> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) >> that real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may disallow >> "IPV of" in this situation. However, unless that is guaranteed, I >> think that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a >> definition) should additionally require that: >> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties >> of B" >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 05:25:38 UTC