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

Re: [Spam:***** SpamScore] Re: formal semantics strawman

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:32:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4E6A3FB6.9080900@ninebynine.org>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 09/09/2011 16:18, James Cheney wrote:
> I think that if we do not come to a common understanding of what components are "syntax" and what parts are "semantics" we will get hopelessly confused.


> In the strawman, the ids denote ?things, but the ?thing denoted by an id can change over time.  Both Luc (offline) and Graham suggested that this may be unnecessarily general.  However, if entities are not first-class semantic things but just statements about them, then your suggestion that "it should have its own ID and a complementOf relationship with the site url" doesn't make sense.

My interpretation is that the identifier used in an assertion ("syntax") is not 
an identifier of the assertion itself, but of a constrained form of the thing 
("semantics") described.

This allows assertions to be about specific things, and don't depend on the 
context in which the identifiers are interpreted as their denotations don't 
change.  Hence my view that allowing denotations to change is over-generalized.

The cost of this is potentially having to mint lots of names to identify things 
in different states (or different characterizations of those things), but that 
doesn't seem unduly expensive to me compared with the alternatives.

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 16:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:08 UTC