- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:12:13 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Let's not play with words. We made it clear that any "The descriptions in a bundle allow an entity to be interpreted in domain-specific manner". So this interpretation is not part of PROV. The only thing we want in PROV is to be able to define a specialization where an additional aspect is fixed: a bundle (which is another entity). Luc On 06/28/2012 12:30 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > On 28/06/2012 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote: >> The rated agent tool:Bob-2011-11-16 is generated after the tool has >> processed >> the contents of ex:run1. >> In that case, the syntax, by this I mean the bundle, is part of the >> semantics. > > Eek! This sounds like pure non-sense to me. > > How can syntax be part of semantics? The nearest I can think of is > Herbrand interpretations, but I can't see that applying here. You > can't even start to go there without having a syntactic and > corresponding semantic structure to start with. > > #g > -- -- 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 Thursday, 28 June 2012 12:12:47 UTC