- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:51:44 +0200
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Satya, The editors took latitude in defining the model for purposes of consistency that's probably the explanation for the divergence Can you suggest your definition reformulated against the current document. Thanks Paul On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:51, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/50 > > Raised by: Satya Sahoo > On product: Conceptual Model > > I am not sure where did we get the currently listed definition of "Ordering of Process" - it is neither listed in the original provenance concept page [1] nor in the consolidated concepts page [2]. > > I had proposed the following definition: > "Ordering of processes execution (in provenance) needs to be modeled as a property linking process entities in specific order along a particular dimension (temporal or control flow)" > > [1]http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptOrderingOfProcesses > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts#Ordering_of_process_execution > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 06:52:27 UTC