- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:07:00 -0400
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, James! -Tim On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:52 AM, James Cheney wrote: > The constraints and discussion in sec. 3.4 do not reflect the results of the vote a few weeks ago, resolving issue 29. > > There are two notes in sec. 3.4 about this. The older material in 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 is inconsistent with the constraints before. I could not think of a good way to justify the old constraints in the week available to revise before the release, and so wrote what made sense to me at the time, but kept the old sections for comparison. > > I believe this issue will be resolved by deleting sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, revising the constraints to reflect the outcome of the vote, and adding comparable discussion material to the remaining section that is consistent with the constraints, but haven't done it yet. > > --James > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> PROV-ISSUE-394: is alternateOf symmetric? [prov-dm-constraints] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/394 >> >> Raised by: Timothy Lebo >> On product: prov-dm-constraints >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#component-4--alternate-entities >> >> Do the following two statements contradict? >> >> "Inference 9 (alternate-reflexive) >> >> For any entity e, we have alternateOf(e,e). >> " >> >> and >> >> "3.4.2 Alternate >> >> Alternate not is reflexive. Indeed, alternate(e,e) does not hold for any arbitrary entity e since e may not be a specialization of another entity." >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 12:07:47 UTC