- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:18:38 +0000
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Khalid, Yes I thought many to many was possible. Luc Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 20 Jun 2011, at 19:11, "Khalid Belhajjame" <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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 18:19:11 UTC