ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5)
Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5)
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- prov-dm
- Raised by:
- Satya Sahoo
- Opened on:
- 2011-12-07
- Description:
- Hi,
The following are my comments for Section 6.2 of the PROV-DM (as on Dec 5):
Section 6.2
1. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,a,g2,u1) holds, for some a, g2, u1, then tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds."
Comment: What information is lost if we verbatim replaced tracedTo with wasDerivedFrom in the above example?
2. "If wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) holds, then tracedTo(e2,e1) also holds."
Comment: So, wasDerivedFrom and tracedTo as effectively interchangeable? If a domain-specific application can assert derivation to be transitive as described earlier in Section 5.3.3.2, then why is traceability required to be defined by the DM?
Thanks.
Best,
Satya - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: closing old collection issues (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-28)
- Re: closing old collection issues (from satya.sahoo@case.edu on 2012-03-28)
- Re: closing old collection issues (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-28)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-03-23)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-12-08)
- PROV-ISSUE-199: Section 6.2 (PROV-DM as on Dec 5) [prov-dm] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-12-07)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log