- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:53:46 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
It appears so. What was the resolution to that? Because the problem Simon describes is still in the draft. -Tim On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Isn't it ISSUE-149 raised by Simon? > > PS: the idea of removing agency from the Derivation component seems appealing! > > > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 10 Apr 2012, at 22:07, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-341 (revision-approver): revision approver - why? [prov-dm] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/341 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm >> >> 4.3.2 >> >> "responsibility: an optional identifier (ag) for the agent who approved the newer entity as a variant of the older;" >> >> ^^^ this seems more appropriately modeled as an account, not stuck as part of the underlying model. >> >> Revision should "just be", and if one wants to know who says that "it just is", we should use accounts to answer. >> >> The same experience that we used to remove "agent asserting an account" from "account" should be reapplied to this parameter as well. >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:54:17 UTC