- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:15:45 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Paul and Satya, Correct. Furthermore, Paolo and I didn't have time to go through this section yet. So, it's very rough! Luc On 07/27/2011 07:51 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 07:16:16 UTC