Re: PROV-ISSUE-164 (TLebo): pre-determined versus determined [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

Taking both Stephan and Graham's suggestions:

original: "Provenance assertions are about pre-determined activities involving entities; as such, they are not dynamic"
->
suggested: "Provenance assertions are about occurring or completed activities and the entities they involve."

-Tim


On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> What about "Provenance assertions are about activities that have occurred, or are currently occurring, and the entities involved in such activities."
> 
> I am not sure we gain much by restricting them to be non-dynamic.  We can't enforce this from a technological standpoint, and it suggests that inaccurate provenance assertions cannot be corrected.
> 
> --Stephan
> 
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> 
>> I take your point about pre-determined.  "Determined" sounds a bit to me like a willful agent.
>> 
>> How about "completed".  I think this suggests past activities without completely excluding fictional accounts of future activities.
>> 
>> #g
>> --
>> 
>> On 23/11/2011 15:29, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> 
>>> PROV-ISSUE-164 (TLebo): pre-determined versus determined [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/164
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>>> 
>>> In http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/provenance-access.html :
>>> 
>>> "Provenance assertions are about pre-determined activities involving entities; as such, they are not dynamic."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is there something special about pre-determined that would be different from "determined"?
>>> 
>>> Could "pre-" be safely removed without losing meaning? It's not that we knew what was going to happen -- only that they already have happened, no?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 00:07:11 UTC