RE: entity invalidation

Hello Luc, all,

+1

I can see it is a useful thing to be able to say with PROV, and the definition and examples largely make sense.

The only slight awkwardness is that, in the BOGOF offer example, the expiry of the non-redeemed offer seems to be caused by a state rather than an activity: the state of being at the end of the happy hour. No activity has been stated explicitly in the PROV-N for the example, but I read that as meaning we don't want to model the activity rather than that it doesn't exist. For any entity invalidated by a state, we could model it as being invalidated by the transition to that state, but I wonder if it will be rather unintuitive in some cases.

But wasInvalidatedBy seems otherwise clear and comparable to other relations, so I support it.

Thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Automatically Adapting Source Code to Document Provenance:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1397/
________________________________________
From: Luc Moreau [L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 April 2012 17:13
To: Provenance Working Group WG
Subject: entity invalidation

Dear all,

Following last week's teleconference, Paul, Paolo, Tim and I have
revisited the proposal on
invalidation.

Your feedback would be useful. Can you express in the usual way if you
support it? and if not, what
issue you have this proposal.

If there is support, we would like to consider this section as part of
the prov-dm release, provided
that we can also adjust prov-o and prov-n.

Regards,
Luc



[1]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-invalidation.html

--
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:00:44 UTC