- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:33:11 +0200
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Tim & Curt +1. Consumption should state an MUST not be used after it consumption occurred. Paul >> 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 >> >> > > -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 14:33:41 UTC