W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Formal semantics draft

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:39:41 +0000
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <349C444F-EE87-4208-837D-4084B0386AE9@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> I took a quick look at the complementarity/view sections.
> 
> I think there's still some dust to settle on this debate w.r.t. the data model, and whether the concepts are based on intervals or attributes or something else, so I'll hold off commenting, except to note:
> 
> Your definition of viewOf(a,b) asserts that the things denoted buy a and b are different objects.  Personally, I wouldn't require this, and allow viewOf(a,a).  But I think it's more a matter of style than fundamental importance.
> 

I agree with both parts of this observation.  As I should have said in the earlier email, I am trying to interpret what is in the 2WD and (for viewOf and foobar) the current ED as literally as I can.  The current ED says that viewOf is antisymmetric, which requires that it be interpreted in a way that rules out viewOf(a,a).  

I will review the email discussion of the new relations also to see if there is anything that should be reflected in the draft.

--James
-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 21:40:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:51 GMT