- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:01:24 +0000
- To: pgroth@gmail.com
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <EAC816DC-FEAB-4087-BAA9-7FF628DC6E4D@inf.ed.ac.uk>
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
I've now closed this issue. --James On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks James. > > Looks good to me. > > Paul > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have added a remark summarizing this discussion just after constraint 47. I propose to close this issue since the remark should address it. Please let me know by Monday if further discussion is needed. > > --James > > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> OK, we can revise the text. ISSUE-615 created. >> >> For the typing constraint, constraint 50 applies: >> >> wasEndedBy(end2; ag,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) implies 'activity' in type(ag) >> likewise, >> wasGeneratedBy(gen1; ag,_a1,_t1,_attrs1) implies 'entity' in type(ag) >> >> Luc >> >> >> >> On 01/16/2013 10:02 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> Hi Luc, >>> >>> I just figured that out as well. :-) >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Two things >>> - maybe this should be made clear in the text? by some comments in the rules. >>> - I also wonder if there should be a typing constraint in the head of the rule to say that agent must be an agent or an entity for the cases to apply. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> Constraint 47 is looking at the ordering constraints between >>> an activity a and an agent ag, considering >>> - ag is an entity (cases 1 and 2) >>> - ag is an activity (cases 3 and 4) >>> >>> Case 3 says that the agent (an activity) must have ended after the start of >>> the activity a, ensuring some overlap between the two. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> On 01/16/2013 09:44 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Can someone clarify the following in the spec (Constraint 47 - 3) >>>> >>>> IF wasAssociatedWith(_assoc; a,ag,_pl,_attrs) and wasStartedBy(start1; a,_e1,_a1,_t1,_attrs1) and wasEndedBy(end2; ag,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) THEN start1 precedes end2. >>>> >>>> >>>> From my reading, this is saying that the start of activity a, must happen after the end of activity, a2 if the the agent, ag, ended activity a2. >>>> >>>> This doesn't make sense to me. An agent can potentially end one activity and start another... >>>> >>>> Can someone clarify this for me? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Paul >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > >
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 19:01:56 UTC