W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-473 (generating-activity): Unique generation events and activities [prov-dm-constraints]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:21:19 +0100
Message-ID: <5032018F.803@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James,

I don't think the normative/non-normative resolution really helps with the 
potential for confusion.

That said, I'm not asking for a change at this time, was just commenting on 
something I noticed.  If there's no other push for change I'd leave this as it is.

#g
--

On 16/08/2012 13:37, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has been no further discussion of the changes proposed to resolve the issue, other than support from Daniel and Curt.  (Tim mentioned in an offline exchange that it is OK, although the "simultaneous" constraint on the generating events surprised him).  I am going to close the issue now.
>
> Graham, I had the impression that we intentionally avoided talking about events in other documents (moving the discussion of them to constraints) to *avoid* adding complications that are not needed to explain e.g. how to use prov-n syntax or prov-o terms.  Conversely, this means that prov-dm and so on should avoid describing constraints or events, so as to avoid conflicting definitions.  If there are places in other documents where there is a conflict, or overlapping specifications that might be ambiguous, these should be raised as editorial issues on them, I think.  If you perceive a problem with  the way things are described in prov-constraints, please make a new issue saying what you think should change in prov-constraints.
>
> Incidentally, prov-constraints describes events mainly in the non-normative rationale section, and the conformance statement says that if there is an apparent inconsistency between the informal text and formal constraints, the latter takes precedence for the purpose of validity/equivalence checking.  I think it would be sensible to broaden this to say that "if there is an apparent inconsistency between formal text of constraints and informal description in this specification or others, the formal text takes precedence".  Would this avoid the issue you perceive below?
>
> --James
>
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/2012 11:45, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> As a reminder, nowhere in prov-dm, we define a notion of event.
>>> Events are only defined in prov-constraints.
>>
>> I noticed this, and had been wondering if I should comment.
>>
>> I don't think it's a technical problem, but did wonder if it might be source of confusion (events being described somewhat differently across the two documents).  I think I had previously suggested that events might be defined explicitly in DM, making them easier to talk about, and reference in (say) the ontology, but I'm not sure offhand if that opens a different can of worms.
>>
>> #g
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 09:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:19 UTC