- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:15:28 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all, Any suggestion on how to respond to this issue? Luc On 10/09/2012 09:44, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-515: Data Model Section 5.1.8 [prov-dm] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/515 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: prov-dm > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Data_Model_Section_5.1.8 > > ISSUE-463 > > See comments for 5.1.3 (incorporated by reference). > > Typo: "in the last three cases" should be "in the third case". > > Invalidating an entity due to a state change is going to be difficult for some people to accept, even though it may not be strictly accurate from a rigorous philosophical point of view (not all adopters of PROV will use the model this way). In fact, if this definition is applied consistently throughout the spec, then all entities will have infinitesimally short lifespans and examples (such as the car relocation example in 2.1.1) will become extremely complex. It might be worthwhile adding a section to discuss topics related to entity state, creation, etc. This would provide a way to retain these more complex points while simplifying the examples used throughout the rest of the spec. > > Is it possible for entities to become temporarily unavailable (e.g., for usage)? If so, a state model for entities might be helpful. > > > > > -- 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 Tuesday, 25 September 2012 11:18:07 UTC