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

Re: prov-dm, prov-n, prov-constraints preliminary staging

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:32:38 +0000
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
CC: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E270B593-5F2E-4B2D-9DE2-2341E47437EC@ecs.soton.ac.uk>


Hi Simon,

The origin of this terminology is

http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference_text

That's what we want to capture in a non-formal way.

Luc

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 22 Nov 2012, at 20:21, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Simon
> 
> Again approved by group.
> 
> We had to stay away from 'kind of' and 'subtype' because they imply (according to reviewer) inheritance and we don't have inheritance.
> 
> I am happy with any phrasing that stays away from inheritance. The ones you suggested imply inheritance.
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton 
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 20:13, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Luc,
>> 
>> The statement you quote also does not make sense, and is not grammatical. Nothing can "be influence" except influence or a synonym of it. They could be "influences", but I don't think this is what is intended. Again, I assume what is meant is that they are "kinds of influence"?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Simon
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Simon,
>>> 
>>> I want to be able to contrast the sentence we are discussing with:
>>> 
>>> "Usage, start, end, generation, invalidation, communication, derivation, 
>>> attribution, association, and delegation are also influence."
>>> 
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> On 11/22/2012 05:32 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
>>>> Hi Luc,
>>>> 
>>>> OK. It is the phrasing that is odd. I have no problem with "defined as" in itself, but the phrase "defined as Influence", as this does not seem meaningful.
>>>> 
>>>> Given what you say, would one of the following be OK?
>>>> 
>>>> Specialization is not defined as a subtype of Influence
>>>> Specialization is not defined as a kind of Influence
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:24, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's one of the changes approved as part of ISSUE-525.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We, in prov-dm, do not define specialization as an influence. Others may
>>>>> do, and we don't disallow it.
>>>>> So I wouldn't want to say that specialization is not a sub-type of
>>>>> Influence, since this seems
>>>>> to prevent others from doing it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Luc
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/22/2012 03:53 PM, Miles, Simon wrote:
>>>>>> Section 5.5.1: "Specialization is not defined as Influence" sounds odd, and I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean "Specialization is not a kind of Influence" or "Specialization is not a sub-type of Influence"? The same issue applies in Sections 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 for Alternate and MemberOf.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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, 22 November 2012 20:33:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 November 2012 20:33:39 GMT