- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:50:30 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Andy, > > Section 9. > > > > Constraining the source of a pattern seems to be only a (small) part of > the > > provenance story. Is it not also desirable to query the source. > > > > Oops! I now see that <source> can be a variable. OK, that's neat, and > > works cleanly at the natural unit of provenance, viz the statement. > >Our unit of provenance could also be viewed as the subgraph because graphs >are the unit of exchange. Need to take this on board for the next round >of drafting. Hmmm, that was my bad wording, not yours. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that the provenance can be applied to a collection of statements -- a (sub)graph. What I meant to say was something like "natural (finest) granularity of provenance". My (rather obvious, I think) point being that provenance doesn't make sense applied to anything smaller than a statement, and your design captures that neatly. (As in: what's the provenance of node X? Nonsense!) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 20:57:27 UTC