- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:06:22 +0100
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jim, I could not follow the example you gave, as I don't know what the semantics of the edges is. Do they refer to IVPof. On 22/08/2011 13:52, Myers, Jim wrote: >> In my opinion versionOf implies that there were some changes that we are >> aware of, and, therefore, the characterizations we end up with are >> describing different entities. I would therefore prefer to describe >> relationship between versions using derivation rather than IVPof. > I'm confused: > Given > > A > / \ > B<---C > > I would say B and C are IVPof/versionOf A and C is derivedFrom B - I don't see how you would choose "derivation rather than IVPof" since they do different things. (To keep going, D derivedFrom C wouldn't automatically make D a version/IVPof A, so one can't just infer versionOf from derivation, etc.) In that case, I would defined VersionOf as a subrelation of DerivedFrom, instead of IVPof. Khalid > > Jim > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 10:06:47 UTC