- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:58:39 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Hi Luc, I don't see a need to raise issues about things that can be fixed easily through discussion among the editors of the document, for problems that are essentially typos on intermediate drafts. It just clogs the issue system. On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-453 (influence identifiers): influence inference and uniqueness > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453 > > Raised by: Luc Moreau > On product: > > > Isn't it strange that the same identifier is used in the inferred inference as in the premise? > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#inference-influence > My answer would be "no". If a usage, generation, whatever "is a" influence relationship, then why do we need a new identifier? > Also, the identifier field does not seem to be a KEY for influence > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#key-relation > > Is this all intended? > I think it should be, but didn't add it yet (what you read is a first draft of this I added yesterday.) > BTW: key-relation states that id is key for wasInvalidatedBy twice Typo. --James -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:59:09 UTC