- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:11:20 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
The responses to ISSUE-499 and ISSUE-529 have now been updated [1]. I have also added our response to ISSSUE-449. Luc [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29 On 10/19/2012 01:42 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Luc > > Yes - I think both clarifications address the points. I'm happy with both responses. > > Regards > Paul > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 13:23, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> On 10/17/2012 07:23 PM, Paul Groth wrote: >>> Hi Luc, >>> >>> I'm fine with all proposed resolutions except for two: >>> >>> For ISSUE-529 >>> - Add to "Prov-dm, as a conceptual model, leaves the implementation of >>> these inherited types to concrete serializations." Thus, >>> serializations can support hadMember as a list. This would I believe >>> address the reviewers comment specifically. >> I have added the following: >> >> As to the question of why doesn't PROV-DM have a list of members as an >> attribute of Collections, the design of prov-dm makes all associations >> between PROV entities relations. In effect, this allows us to understand >> the structure of a provenance graph, just by looking at the relations, >> without having to process attributes of entities. A given implementation >> may also to decide to represent collection members as attributes if it >> finds it convenient. >> >>> ISSUE-499 >>> - I think the clarification provided is clear but we could do more to >>> address the recommendation that somehow the definitions seem circular. >>> Can we say the words "instant" or immediate in these definitions. We >>> often make appeals to prov-constraints but I believe that PROV-DM >>> should stand on its own. >> We could add the following after the definition of >> generation/usage/invalidation/start/end in PROV-DM: >> >> >> - Given that a generation is the completion of production of an entity, >> it is instantaneous. >> - Given that an invalidation is the start of destruction, cessation, or >> expiry, it is instantaneous. >> - Given that a usage is the beginning of utilizing an entity, it is >> instantaneous. >> - Given that a start is when an activity is deemed to have started, it >> is instantaneous. >> - Given that an end is when an activity is deemed to have ended, it is >> instantaneous. >> >> >> Would it address your concerns? >> >> Luc >> >>> Thanks >>> Paul >> -- >> 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 >> -- 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 Friday, 19 October 2012 15:11:52 UTC