<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>We are reaching the end of the working draft period. We made many
changes to the document, following the guide lines of the <br>
</p>
<p>agreements listed after several meetings, with chairs and
vice-chairs of DM and TCG at interop. <br>
</p>
<p>I don't think it is appropriate to rediscuss the names of the
attributes in the data model classes. We borrowed the <i>invalidatedatTime</i>
concepts from W3C , it sounds good to name then the same<br>
</p>
<p>What we want is a clear document, that people not introduced to
provenance tracking can understand and figure out in their context
. <br>
</p>
<p>If some sentences are unclear , this is our job as authors to
change them. The opinion of just one person does not replace
others advices. <br>
</p>
<p>Best regards, Mireille<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 10/07/2019 à 11:22, Ole Streicher a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a6168b99-0bc2-999d-a242-63f6d9e68bc5@aip.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Mathieu,
this attribute was originally called "destructionTime" in our model,
which perfectly describes its intention (see the previous PR).
The name was changed by you to the W3C attribute name "invalidatedTime"
during the adaptation of the compromise model, specifically in commit
#5479 on Volute.
On my responses, and in the May Interop discussion, I responded that the
name change may be misleading, since it does not completely reflect the
semantics of that attribute. The compromise here was to add a sentence,
that has nothing to do with the validity of the Entities.
Since we are not really W3C compatible anymore (and need conversion name
tables elsewhere as well), maybe the clearer solution to go back to the
old attribute name here.
Best regards
Ole
On 10.07.19 10:27, Mathieu Servillat wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear DMers,
As it seems that the authors can also express comments on their text
during the WD review, I have one concern with a sentence that was
somehow added without my consent, and that I find wrong and misleading
about the relation of invalidatedAtTime to validity. Here is the text in
the WD:
Table 1 - invalidatedAtTime: date and time of the destruction,
cessation, or expiry of the entity. The
entity is no longer available for use (or further invalidation) after
invalidation. This does not relate to
the validity of the entity.
The last sentence "This does not relate to the validity of the entity"
brings confusion, as after invalidation, an entity is of course not
valid anymore in some way (more specifically "no longer available for
use", and probably most of the time destroyed). We could further discuss
elsewhere the relative validity of an entity for a given usage, but it
is out of the scope of the DM WD, that simply provides an irreversible,
absolute validity check.
This attribute is directly taken from the W3C PROV recommendation, and
so is the description text, except for the addition of this sentence.
Therefore, it would be best to stick to the W3C description to avoid
confusion.
Cheers,
Mathieu
--
Dr. Mathieu Servillat
Laboratoire Univers et Théories, Bât 18, Bur. 222
Observatoire de Paris, Site de Meudon
5 place Jules Janssen
92195 Meudon, France
Tél. +33 1 45 07 78 62
--
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
Mireille Louys, MCF (Associate Professor)
CDS IPSEO, Images, Laboratoire Icube
Observatoire de Strasbourg Telecom Physique Strasbourg
11 rue de l'Université 300, Bd Sebastien Brandt CS 10413
F- 67000-STRASBOURG F-67412 ILLKIRCH Cedex
Tel: +33 3 68 85 24 34</pre>
</body>
</html>