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

Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:59:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4F14ABCC.6080306@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
James,

I would say that e1 and e2 *denote* aspects of the same thing, with different 
levels of specialty.

Thus, when we say specializationOf(e1,e2), I would suggest that the (full) 
*description* of e1 subsumes the description of e2; that is, any descriptive 
statement that is true of e2 is also true of e1, but that further things may be 
true of e1 that are not true of e2.  That is, e1 denotes a more specialized, or 
more constrained, aspect of the thing denoted by e2.

So e1 and e2 denote things, not descriptions, but the relationship of 
specialization allows us to say things about the relative descriptions of those 
things.

To my mind, introducing the distinction between things and descriptions into the 
domain of discourse (i.e. the range of denotations of by names like e1 and e2) 
just complicates the expressions of our language without offering any useful 
increase in expressive capability.

#g
--


On 16/01/2012 16:09, 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 23:27:36 UTC

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