Re: promote provenance to a requirement?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:41:05PM -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> Folks,
> Someone please check my faulty memory. I have in my DAWG-TODO file a
> line that says I should move 4.2 Provenance to the requirements
> section; but I have little memory of this.

Ah, I realized what this was... I agreed with Dave Beckett's claim:

  I think 4.2 probably should be a (candidate) requirement, not an
  objective.  At least if it is replaced with something more specific
  such as enabling the returning of the Source URI of the document
  that contained the trible.

That is, I agree that 4.2 Provenance should be a requirement. However,
now that I think about it a bit more, I'm not sure you can always give
a source URI for every triple; what about ones generated by inference?

I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this?


Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 14:53:32 UTC