| Question asked
|
More of a comment than a question, but as … More of a comment than a question, but as a formal description of the Open Provenance Model, this paper contains a lot of material which seems unclear, unnecessary or inconsistent. For example, the "rules" of the Provenance Graph definition: in rules 2 through 5, what does it mean to "list the accounts" an item belongs to? Rule 12 (union and intersection of legal account views) is redundant as it follows from previous rules. Does rule 15 imply that an OPM graph with only one account view cannot be a provenance graph (because that would require a legal pair of views)? Rule 17 (provenance graphs do not need time annotations) seems superfluous as it has already been stated that time information is optional. Section 5 (Timeless Formal Model) is similar. In rule 8, what does the union or intersection of two graphs mean, when a graph is defined as a tuple, not as a set? Apart from the style of the paper, the fact that the authors do not try to explain why this particular model was chosen, what it is good for, is frustrating. osen, what it is good for, is frustrating.
|
