- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:14:18 +0100
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Yes, what i had in mind is "ComplementaryCharacterizationOf", which may be too long. I also guess I was using the previous definition that specify that a "Bob is a characterized entity", instead of the current definition which define an "entity as a characterized thing". Khalid On 22/08/2011 13:58, Myers, Jim wrote: >> Given an entity that is being characterized by two observers, the two >> characetrizations that we end up with are likely to be complementary, in the >> sense that one of them include immutable properties that are mutable (or >> not at all) described by the second characterization, and vice-versa. > Ignoring any shift in meaning for now, I can see how "complementOf" makes sense if Bobs are 'characterizations' - as you say the characterizations can be complementary. But if Bob is an entity as we currently have agreement on, complement seems to be the wrong word - there aren't complementary entities involved. "ComplementaryCharacterizationOf' would bring back the meaning as you've described above, but that gets long relative to ViewOf ... > > Jim > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 10:15:07 UTC