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

Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

From: <creed@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <0d2f152615136da66aa5b3fd219652a1.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1

Carl
> 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
>
> +1
>
> #g
> --
>
>>
>>
>> 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 Tuesday, 21 June 2011 01:38:11 GMT

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