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

Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:11:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFF8D41.7050508@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi,

This is just to further specify the semantics of "corressondence".
In the comments that follow the defintition in [1], it is stated that 
"In the definition of IVP of, the term "corresponds" is important since, 
properties of A may be converted into properties of B (e.g. temperature 
conversion from Farenheit to Celsius) or can be merged."

Are you here thinking of one to one correspondence? In other words, are 
many to many correspondences allowed?

Thanks, khalid

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Further_simplification


On 20/06/2011 17:06, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following comments, I have tried to simplify the definitions of 
> 'thing' and 'IVP of'  further.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Further_simplification 
>
>
> What do you think? If we are happy with this simplification, we should 
> try to
> get a coherent set of definitions for Generation/Use/Derivation.
>
> Best regards,
> Luc
>
>
> On 06/20/2011 02:42 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>> From this I'm not sure if "dynamic resource" is useful as a
>>> classification, I would go for Luc's view (and our accepted
>>> definition) that invariance is just a relation [...]
>>
>> This would appear to be a consensus!
>>
>> #g
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 18:11:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT