W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:22:51 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8953c7d3d85c424c79090c02c917d729o0FHMy08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F145CEB.3020409@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Paolo, if it was the intent, I had not understood this at all.

It is however strange to me to have relations about things.
I thought the whole point of entities was to say that we always talk
about characterized things i.e. things and their situation in the world,
which is what we call entity.

Because of this, I didn't think we had the ability to refer to things.

Luc, Confused

On 01/16/2012 05:14 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Luc
>
> I have made amends in my latest email of 1/2 hour ago or so, where I 
> ack that the two relations are not on the same level, i.e.,
>
> alternateOf is about things
> specializationOf is about entities
>
> as James suggested
>
> This can be reflected it the text once we agree, as usual
>
> -Paolo
>
>
> On 1/16/12 5:10 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I think that multiple conversations are touching the very issue: it's
>> connecting
>> to the discussion on identifiers.
>>
>> In his introduction, Paolo has defined these relations as being
>> between two records (i.e. two descriptions).  However, later on, the
>> same terminology is no longer used.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>> On 01/16/2012 04:09 PM, James Cheney wrote:
>>> In that case, would you (or Luc) also agree with describing 
>>> "specializationOf(e1,e2)" as "e1 and e2 describe the same thing, and 
>>> e1 is more detailed/specific than e2"?
>>>
>>> The concern I have about specalizationOf is that it is about the 
>>> descriptions, not the described things.  I can rationalize 
>>> alternateOf as saying that "e1 and e2 refer to the same thing", 
>>> which is almost what Luc wrote, but to rationalize specializationOf 
>>> I need e1 and e2 to refer to descriptions, not things themselves.  
>>> (I think it is this distinction that is one of the root causes of 
>>> confusion here.)
>>>
>>> --James
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> thing (we just crossed in the mail)
>>>> -Paolo
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/12 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To add on to this, did we really mean
>>>>>
>>>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same entity
>>>>>
>>>>> or did we mean
>>>>>
>>>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same THING?
>>>>>
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

-- 
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
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 17:23:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC