--- a/model/comments/lc-ack-robert.txt Fri Oct 26 12:20:42 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/lc-ack-robert.txt Fri Oct 26 12:31:30 2012 +0100
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
Suggested change implemented.
Further response added.
+
Given that this point has been debated at length (there is no support
to introduce identifiers for individual prov statements), I propose
to close this issue.
@@ -84,7 +85,13 @@
acknowledged that those creating provenance statements may face an
arbitrary choice between the two.
-I extended the response with "We acknowledge the reviewer's follow-on comment. Ultimately, the Working Group provides a vocabulary, and users of that Vocabulary will have to make judgement as to which constructs they have to use. This issue is not specific to revision and quotation. (e.g. What is entity? what is activity? Is this specialization or alternate? etc)"
+I extended the response with "We acknowledge the reviewer's follow-on
+comment. Ultimately, the Working Group provides a vocabulary, and
+users of that Vocabulary will have to make judgement as to which
+constructs they have to use. This issue is not specific to revision
+and quotation. (e.g. What is entity? what is activity? Is this
+specialization or alternate? etc)"
+
I propose to close.
1.1.22 ISSUE-515 (Invalidation) Re: temporarily unavailable
@@ -115,9 +122,14 @@
implementations have a chance to experiment with the spec.
Added a comment:
- In response to the follow-on message, the Working Group, as it wraps up its activities, will consider follow-on activities, and mechanisms for community to share information. The Semantic Web wiki is a starting point.
+
+ In response to the follow-on message, the Working Group, as it
+ wraps up its activities, will consider follow-on activities, and
+ mechanisms for community to share information. The Semantic Web
+ wiki is a starting point.
I propose to close this issue.
+
1.1.25 ISSUE-522 (Activity Delegation) There were two parts to my
comment. First, agents can be either entities or activities.
Does delegation apply to only those agents that are entities, or
@@ -132,7 +144,7 @@
interoperability would suffer without some guidance within the
spec.
-Added comment to address this point.
+Added comment to address this point:
- It is true that, in a delegation, activity is optional. The reviewer suggests "Therefore, it is possible to state that one agent is the delegate of another, irrespective of any activity. This delegation likely is not indefinite, however, and is bounded by some context (e.g., time, role within an organization, etc). It should be possible to describe the bounds of the delegation.". But it is not the intended semantics:
o PROV constraints defines the semantics of optional arguments, and
--- a/model/prov-dm.html Fri Oct 26 12:20:42 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html Fri Oct 26 12:31:30 2012 +0100
@@ -948,6 +948,8 @@
<p>
+The focus of derivation is on connecting a generated entity to a used
+entity.
While the basic idea is simple, the concept of derivation can be quite
subtle: implicit is the notion that the generated entity was affected
in some way by the used entity.
@@ -3910,6 +3912,8 @@
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/504">ISSUE-504</a>: Updated definition of collection.
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/503">ISSUE-503</a>: Rephrased the introduction of expanded association in section 2.2.1.2 Expanded Relations.
<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/514">ISSUE-514</a>: added links to the attributes listed in the secondary element table. Also removed PrimarySource, Quotation, Revision.
+<li> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/502">ISSUE-502</a>: Added sentence in section 2.1.2 explaining that the focus
+ of derivation is on connecting a generated entity to a used entity.
</ul>
</section>