section 4
authorLuc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:42:18 +0100
changeset 95 46a94f1a5991
parent 94 2cc4a7bfd5fa
child 96 62541bf5b36e
section 4
model/ProvenanceModel.html
--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Thu Aug 04 10:03:33 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Thu Aug 04 10:42:18 2011 +0100
@@ -303,7 +303,7 @@
 
 
     <section > 
-<h2>About the Provenance Language</h2>
+<h2>About the Provenance Data Model</h2>
 
 <div class='issue'>The name of the language still has to be decided by the WG. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/31">ISSUE-31</a></div>
 
@@ -329,17 +329,27 @@
 </p>
 
 
+<p>This specification defines a data model for provenance (placeholder acronym PIDM), relies on a language, the <a href="#ASN-convention">Abstract Syntax Notation</a>, to express
+<em>instances</em> of that data model.</p>
 
-<p>PIL is a language by which   representations of the world can be expressed using terms that are drawn from a controlled
- vocabulary.
 
-These representations are relative to an asserter, and in that sense constitute assertions about
-   the world. Different asserters will normally contribute different representations, and no attempt is made to define a notion of consistency of such different sets of assertions. The language provides the means to associate attribution to assertions.
+<p>PIDM is a provenance data model designed to express representations
+of the world.  These representations are relative to an asserter, and
+in that sense constitute assertions characterizing the
+world. Different asserters will normally contribute different
+representations, and no attempt is made to define a notion of
+consistency of such different sets of assertions. The language
+provides the means to associate attribution to assertions.
 </p>
 
 
 
-<p>All assertions in PIL SHOULD be interpreted as a record of what has happened, as opposed to what may or will happen.</p>
+<p>The data model is designed to capture events that happened in the past, as opposed to event
+that may or will happen. 
+However, this distinction is not formally enforced.
+Therefore, all PIDM assertions SHOULD be interpreted as a record of what has happened, as opposed to what may or will happen.</p>
+
+<div class='note'>Can this be enforced formally?</div>
 
 <p> 
 This specification does not prescribe the means by which assertions are made, for example on the basis of observations, inferences, or any other means.