- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:14:43 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 23:21, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> Exactly. I am not sure why is it necessary for generation of x to precede >> end of pe since they can share the same event or time value? For example, it >> is fairly common to state "the car production ended with the production of >> car c1 at 10:00am on Dec 7." > The constraint is just stating that generation occurs during the duration > of the activity. I don't see how it can occur before or after the activity. What Satya is pointing out that "a precedes b" reads like t(a) < t(b) not t(a) <= t(b) I (and obviously Satya) think there's a good case for all time-boundaries in PROV to be inclusive, other wise you are forced to add a tiny time delta between the last generation time and the end of the activity. (Or in a push-model, between the first usage time and activity start). It would also force all durations to be non-zero, which in some models would not make sense. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:15:35 UTC