W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-comments@w3.org > January 2013

Re: PROV comments from Clark&Parsia

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:56:56 +0100
Cc: Héctor Pérez-Urbina <hector@clarkparsia.com>, "public-prov-comments@w3.org" <public-prov-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F205B14-4BF1-43E6-9C5C-4D3F8C1DEFD0@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
>> Does this help?  In any case, as noted below, we're happy to revisit
>> the terminology - to me, though, "uniqueness inferences" does not
>> sound right.
> Having said all this, I must also say this is a rather minor point. We
> don't have any objections if you would like to keep using the term
> "uniqueness constraints" but then adding a paragraph clarifying this
> point would be good.


Yes, we are only debating nomenclature here; of course I agree that one can view a functional dependency/uniqueness constraint as an inference whose conclusion is an equality formula.  I just wanted to explain my rationale for grouping the different kinds of formulas into "inferences" and "constraints".  From a formal point of view, they could all be called formulas or they could all be called constraints.

I am happy with your proposed resolution of keeping things as is and clarifying the point (i.e. explaining that the names "constraint" and "inference" are semi-arbitrary and may or may not map to what seems natural in other settings).

I wanted to respond to Hector's comments in detail because some of Hector's examples gave me the impression that there was some confusion about how existential variables behave, which in turn may mean that there is something that needs to be further clarified in the document.  I will respond separately.  Thanks again for your detailed comments.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:09:00 UTC