- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:22:14 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian, Response below. On 01/17/2012 10:14 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > 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. > > I had already agreed on this a while back. I have just made the change, see: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#dfn-follows Luc -- 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 Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:22:53 UTC