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

Re: smaller example

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:18:37 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0f663bad027a5ff45c4ef58b7a5cbc3cn5FBIi08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DF9D87D.20406@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stian,

Not exactly, I think, since there is no requirement on enumerating
properties completely.

In fact, in practice,  I suppose we may not list invariant properties, 
at all!

So, in the File Example, contents is invariant for i1 and assumed 
variable in  i0.


On 06/16/2011 11:03 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 19:30, Myers, Jim<MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>> For A and B, both of which are "things", B is an  IVP of A iff
>> * A and B represent the same entity/part of the real world at some
>> instant in time (the set of properties they share must have identical
>> values at that instant), and
>> * there is/are mutable property(ies) of A that is/are correspond to
>> immutable property(ies) of B (i.e. ones that are integral to B's
>> identity)
> This sounds like a very reasonable definition. So an IVP B of A simply
> means that A's immutable properties is a subset of B's immutable
> properties - A is a "freer version" of B. I guess standard database
> theory with candidate vs primary key applies.
> Now we just need a better name!

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:05 UTC