Skip to content

GitLab

  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • V valueflows
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 42
    • Issues 42
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 6
    • Merge requests 6
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Value Flows
  • valueflows
  • Merge requests
  • !392

Closed
Created Jan 06, 2019 by elf Pavlik@elf-pavlikOwner
  • Report abuse
Report abuse

examples of ProvenanceAnchor (generalized version of what current Transfer tries to do)

  • Overview 15
  • Commits 1
  • Changes 1

Let's consider vf:ProvenanceAnchor and vf:anchoredWith as working names.

It provides the same provenance tracking capability as using vf:Transfer but doesn't make any assumption about which actions flows will use.

It includes alternative to using sub processes in https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/pull/386/commits/fab19b610b0548f7beef8df5f18fb29fcd17da13

We still need to see how vf:anchoredWith plays with using vf:trackingIdentifier.

I think to evaluate how it compares to just using granular sub processes we will need to evaluate algorithms and queries required to gather provenance information with either approach.

Assignee
Assign to
Reviewer
Request review from
Time tracking
Source branch: github/fork/elf-pavlik/provenance-anchor