- From: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:39:21 +0200
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=hbbfp+6Yk6bFtkig9muVQ5SwfH3HDq8SKZ-Lg0Th3P4fhRw@mail.gmail.com>
The only problem I see with allowing it, is when using influencedBy. With influence you'd be allowed to assert this: agent(a1) activity(a1) influencedBy(a1,a1) - Tom 2012/7/18 Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> > PROV-ISSUE-454 (key across relations/objectss): can the same identifier > be used for different relations objects [prov-dm-constraints] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/454 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm-constraints > > > We have the following two uniqueness constraints. > > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-object > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-relation > > It is not clear to me if > > entity(e123) > agent(e123) > > are acceptable. (To me, they should be, since we don't state the set of > agents to be disjoint from any other set) > > Likewise, can we write > > used(event1234,a1,e1,attrs1) > and > wasGeneratedBy(event1234,e2,a2,attrs2) > > Probably not. > Note: if we allow the two above, then I am not sure that strict ordering > is wise in ordering constraints. > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:39:55 UTC