ISSUE-41: Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST

distinct-roles

Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST

State:

CLOSED

Product:

prov-dm

Raised by:

Paul Groth

Opened on:

2011-07-23

Description:

Currently, use has the following definition with respect to roles:

"A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use assertions must have a distinct role."

A process execution could conceivably read the same file twice. Thus, the file would play the same role twice with respect to a process execution. It's not clear why this constraint is an absolute or the impact of making it a non-hard requirement.

Although, I can see why it would be recommended practice in order to ensure disambiguation of roles.

Suggested resolution, change the sentence to as follows:

"A reference to a given BOB may appear in multiple use assertions that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use assertions should have a distinct role."

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-11-30)
2. Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-08-22)
3. Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk on 2011-07-25)
4. Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2011-07-25)
5. Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2011-07-25)
6. PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-07-23)

Related notes:

Display change log