Re: question on constraint 47 (3) - wasAssociatedWith-ordering

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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#dfn-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
>
>