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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
MUST is confirmed and justified.
Note that in this example, you seem to imply a "role type" rather than a "role name". A note was added in the role section. We need to decide whether we want this distinction.
Display change log