--- a/model/prov-constraints.html Sun Apr 29 14:27:02 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-constraints.html Sun Apr 29 14:42:25 2012 +0100
@@ -1695,7 +1695,7 @@
of derivations starting from an empty collection can be found. Since a
set of statements regarding a collection's evolution may be
incomplete, so is the reconstructed state obtained by querying those
-statements. In general, all statements reflect partial knowledge regarding a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which some of the state changes may have been missed, the more generic <a href="#Derivation-Relation">derivation</a> relation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be expressed as insertions or removals. The following example illustrates this.</p>
+statements. In general, all statements reflect partial knowledge regarding a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which some of the state changes may have been missed, the more generic derivation relation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be expressed as insertions or removals. The following example illustrates this.</p>
@@ -1757,11 +1757,11 @@
-<p>Two different statements about the same entity cannot co-exist in a same account
- as formalized in <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a>.</p>
+<p>Two different statements about the same entity cannot co-exist in a PROV instance
+ as formalized in <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a>.</p>
<!-- Moved to uniqueness constraints section
-<div class='constraint' id='unique-statement-in-account'>
+<div class='constraint' id='entity-unique'>
<p>Given an entity identifier <span class="name">e</span>, there is at most one statement
<span class="name">entity(e,attrs)</span> occurring in a given
account, where <span class="name">attrs</span> is some set of
@@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@
<p>In some cases, there may be a requirement for two different
- statements concerning the same entity to be included in the same account. To satisfy the constraint <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a>, we can adopt a different identifier for one of them, and relate the two statements with the <span class="name">alternateOf</span> relation. </p>
+ statements concerning the same entity to be included in the same account. To satisfy the constraint <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a>, we can adopt a different identifier for one of them, and relate the two statements with the <span class="name">alternateOf</span> relation. </p>
<div class="anexample" id="merge-with-rename">
<p>We now reconsider the same two statements of a same entity, but we change the identifier for one of them:</p>
@@ -1794,7 +1794,7 @@
<p> Taking the union of two accounts is another account,
formed by the union of the statements they respectively contain. We note that the resulting union may or may not invalidate some constraints:
<ul>
-<li> Two entity statements with a same identifier but different sets of attributes exist in each original account may invalidate <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a> in the union, unless some form of statement merging or renaming (as per <a href="#merge-with-rename">Example</a>) occurs.
+<li> Two entity statements with the same identifier but different sets of attributes exist in each original PROV instance may invalidate <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a> in the union, unless some form of statement merging or renaming (as per <a href="#merge-with-rename">Example</a>) occurs.
<li> Structurally well-formed
accounts are not
closed under union because the
--- a/model/releases/WD-prov-constraints-20120503/Overview.html Sun Apr 29 14:27:02 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/releases/WD-prov-constraints-20120503/Overview.html Sun Apr 29 14:42:25 2012 +0100
@@ -2383,7 +2383,7 @@
of derivations starting from an empty collection can be found. Since a
set of statements regarding a collection's evolution may be
incomplete, so is the reconstructed state obtained by querying those
-statements. In general, all statements reflect partial knowledge regarding a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which some of the state changes may have been missed, the more generic <a href="#Derivation-Relation">derivation</a> relation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be expressed as insertions or removals. The following example illustrates this.</p>
+statements. In general, all statements reflect partial knowledge regarding a sequence of data transformation events. In the particular case of collection evolution, in which some of the state changes may have been missed, the more generic derivation relation should be used to signal that some updates may have occurred, which cannot be expressed as insertions or removals. The following example illustrates this.</p>
@@ -2442,11 +2442,11 @@
-<p>Two different statements about the same entity cannot co-exist in a same account
- as formalized in <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a>.</p>
+<p>Two different statements about the same entity cannot co-exist in PROV instance
+ as formalized in <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a>.</p>
<!-- Moved to uniqueness constraints section
-<div class='constraint' id='unique-statement-in-account'>
+<div class='constraint' id='entity-unique'>
<p>Given an entity identifier <span class="name">e</span>, there is at most one statement
<span class="name">entity(e,attrs)</span> occurring in a given
account, where <span class="name">attrs</span> is some set of
@@ -2460,7 +2460,7 @@
<p>In some cases, there may be a requirement for two different
- statements concerning the same entity to be included in the same account. To satisfy the constraint <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a>, we can adopt a different identifier for one of them, and relate the two statements with the <span class="name">alternateOf</span> relation. </p>
+ statements concerning the same entity to be included in the same account. To satisfy the constraint <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a>, we can adopt a different identifier for one of them, and relate the two statements with the <span class="name">alternateOf</span> relation. </p>
<div class="anexample" id="merge-with-rename">
<p>We now reconsider the same two statements of a same entity, but we change the identifier for one of them:</p>
@@ -2478,7 +2478,7 @@
<p> Taking the union of two accounts is another account,
formed by the union of the statements they respectively contain. We note that the resulting union may or may not invalidate some constraints:
</p><ul>
-<li> Two entity statements with a same identifier but different sets of attributes exist in each original account may invalidate <a href="#unique-statement-in-account">unique-statement-in-account</a> in the union, unless some form of statement merging or renaming (as per <a href="#merge-with-rename">Example</a>) occurs.
+<li> Two entity statements with the same identifier but different sets of attributes exist in each PROV instance may invalidate <a href="#entity-unique">entity-unique</a> in the union, unless some form of statement merging or renaming (as per <a href="#merge-with-rename">Example</a>) occurs.
</li><li> Structurally well-formed
accounts are not
closed under union because the