- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:24:04 +0100
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James, Can I check the following: Consider: wasStartedBy(id1,a,e,_a1,_t1,_attrs1) and used(id2,a,e,_t2,_attrs2) So, we can infer wasInfluencedBy(id1,a,e,_attrs1) and wasInfluencedBy(id2,a,e,_attrs2) And this is valid, because we allow multiple distinct influence relations between a pair (a,e). Is this right? Luc On 07/18/2012 10:58 AM, James Cheney wrote: > Hi Luc, > > I don't see a need to raise issues about things that can be fixed easily through discussion among the editors of the document, for problems that are essentially typos on intermediate drafts. It just clogs the issue system. > > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-453 (influence identifiers): influence inference and uniqueness >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: >> >> >> Isn't it strange that the same identifier is used in the inferred inference as in the premise? >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-influence >> > My answer would be "no". If a usage, generation, whatever "is a" influence relationship, then why do we need a new identifier? > >> Also, the identifier field does not seem to be a KEY for influence >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-relation >> >> Is this all intended? >> > I think it should be, but didn't add it yet (what you read is a first draft of this I added yesterday.) > >> BTW: key-relation states that id is key for wasInvalidatedBy twice > Typo. > > --James -- 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 Wednesday, 18 July 2012 10:24:40 UTC