- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:22:31 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tim, The approver is not the asserter. I don't understand what the problem is. Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 11 Apr 2012, at 19:53, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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 21:23:29 UTC