- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:24:19 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> > Please express your vote for each proposal separately: > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5- > prov-dm-misc.html#proposal1 +1 - perhaps "endOfLife" for the type of event? I'm not so sure I like the examples though - version 1 doesn't become invalid/endOfLife when v2 comes out - v1 is still a valid entity that could have provenance (v1 is used to create v1.1 after v2 comes out...). Similarly, the entity representing the papers doesn't become something that has no provenance when it becomes unavailable - in fact I'd probably like to document what happened to it between when it went offline and when it reappeared. I think there are real entity ends that should be describable in the model, but these examples don't seem like good/valid uses to me. > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5- > prov-dm-misc.html#proposal2 +1 > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5- > prov-dm-misc.html#proposal3 +0 - an explicit relationship for activity started by activity is useful and it should be distinct. If this is controversial, I think it will always be possible to define an entity that is generically "results of activity 1" that would allow one to document the activity to activity relationship in two steps - hence the +0 - wasstartedbyactivity is a useful convenience but doesn't really affect the expressive power of the language significantly (IMHO). > > Hopefully, this is one of last batch of proposals before WD5. > > Regards, > 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 Friday, 9 March 2012 19:26:52 UTC