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


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


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 UTC

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