Re: PROV-ISSUE-197: Section 5.4.1 and Section 5.4.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5)

Thanks Satya.  It is now closed.
Luc

On 03/23/2012 02:48 PM, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Luc,
> I am fine with closing the issue.
>
>     Instead, the constraint is formulated as follows:
>     http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#unique-description-in-account
>
>
>  I have not reviewed the constraints, so if needed I will raise issue 
> against it separately.
>
> Best,
> Satya
>
>
>
>         2. "Application of identified-entity-in-account results in an
>         entity record containing the attribute-value pairs age=20 and
>         age=30. This results in an inconsistent characterization of a
>         person."
>
>         Comment: This is incorrect. The above characterization may be
>         valid at different points in time or events (when the Berlin
>         Wall fell, East and West Germany unified) etc. I don't think
>         this example is needed in DM.
>
>
>
>     We no longer use union of sets of attribute-value pairs. So, i
>     htink this issue is superseded.
>
>
>         3. "Account records constitute a scope for record identifiers.
>         Since accounts can be nested, scopes can also be nested; thus,
>         the scope of record identifiers should be understood in the
>         context of such nested scopes. When a record with an
>         identifier occurs directly within an account, then its
>         identifier denotes this record in the scope of this account,
>         except in sub-accounts where records with the same identifier
>         occur."
>
>         Comment: This issue has been previously raised multiple number
>         of times. The current version of the DM considers identifiers
>         for entity and entity records to be same - hence the above
>         applies to entity identifiers, which violates the Web
>         architecture for globally unique identifiers and strictly
>         monotonic notion of RDF semantics.
>
>
>
>     No more scope, no more nesting of accounts.  So, again, I think
>     this is superseded.
>
>         --------------
>         Section 5.4.2
>         1. Given the account construct that already has all the
>         functionalities of a record container (with additional
>         information about asserter), why is a separate construct of
>         "record container" needed?
>
>
>
>     Container is no longer in prov-dm.
>     Account exists as a type of entity (accountEntity(name under
>     discussion)).
>
>     So, I think the issue is superseded.
>
>     In prov-n, the container is where you find namespace declarations.
>     Account contains prov-n expressions and has a name.
>
>     So, here again, I think the issue is superseded.
>
>
>     Given this, I believe the issue can be closed. Can you confirm
>     this is the case?
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Luc
>
>         Thanks.
>
>         Best,
>         Satya
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>

-- 
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