- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:32:48 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 14:16, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: >> So the consumption means the entity can't be used/involved with >> anything after that - what is then the (later) expiration? > That the entity can't be used/involved with anything after the given time (independent of any consumption). Reasonable, but is that not out of scope for PROV? That is a plan, or intended life time. It is like saying the work activity should stop at 17:00, however it lasted until 19:15. Consumption means there needs to be an activity to consume it. Is that why you need Expiration - to avoid having an expiration activity for entity that self-destruct? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea about consumption, it should cover very well the use-cases where an activity changes a thing so that it is no longer characterizable as the old entity, for instance :dinnerOnPlate :(was)ConsumedBy :Stian - there is no :dinnerOnPlate after that. But would it also cover the cases where the activity is ambiguous or unknown, like if we merge expiration and consumption? The example on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/eb6cee9c5495/examples/eg-20-collections-exercise/rdf/eg-20-collections-exercise.ttl is a bit confusing - why would the offer only be consumed by Paolo? Perhaps it's a voucher you are describing? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 13:33:37 UTC