Closed cbizon closed 3 years ago
I agree with the overall idea, but I'm not sure that wasGeneratedBy is the right relationship to use here. I think it makes more sense to say that the new interpretation wasDerivedFrom the old one.
I don't know if it is worth modelling a 'ReviseInterpretation' separate from a 'GenerateInterpretation' (so it could, for instance, only include the "delta" between the evidence used and the interpretation), or maybe allow any 'GenerateInterpretation' to refer to a prior revision, in which case it would represent a 'ReviseInterpretation' activity.
Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed, wasDerivedFrom is the one I meant to say.
Outcome of discussion on the DMWG:
There are several use cases in play:
Because this third use case is valid, I'm going to leave this open, assigned to @larrybabb since I think he is working on the high level use-cases/examples.
I'm not clear on the way that edits are going to be handled in the model. So person A makes an interpretation, and then person B goes to look at it, and wants to change something. Maybe they add or remove evidence, or change a rule from strong to supporting. So we're saying that this will be a new interpretation, right?
That interpretation will have wasGeneratedBy pointing to the old interpretation, and it will have its own GenerateInterpretation activity (or whatever that 3rd activity is called). The entities that feed into that are actually mostly the same entities as in the first interpretation (same id and prov etc), except for whatever changes were made, right?