Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

On 21/06/2011 13:31, Simon Miles wrote:
> +1
> for the definitions of thing and invariant view

+1 (if we can add a clarification/explanation about "corresponding" in 
the definition of IVP; as what has been discussed on the list)

-- Jun
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
> On 21 June 2011 11:40, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> Good suggestion, Stian, thanks!
>> Luc
>>
>> On 06/21/2011 11:07 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 17:06, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 with the qualification of correspondence, for instance:
>>>
>>> The asserter is free to choose what "corresponding properties" above
>>> means. The corresponding properties might match many-to-many, eg.
>>> rectangle A may have varying length and width, whereas B, an IVP of A,
>>> may have a invariant area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 20:51:48 UTC