- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:19:00 -0400
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Cc: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 30, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > On 03/30/2012 09:32 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> 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. > > I think you are both hitting the right issue. > > There is a difference between saying something shouldn't be used and > saying it can't be used (i.e. it is impossible for it to have been > used). > > I agree -- we want to handle the later case, not the former. Well stated! I agree, "can't be used" is much more fundamental and appropriate in PROV. We should leave "shouldn't be used" for the application domains and extensions. -Tim > > Curt > >
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 14:19:34 UTC