- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:03:50 +0000
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- 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>
> 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. A is a document, B and C are specific versions of it (specific text strings). B IVPof A, C IVPof A, C derivedFrom B. I see versionOf being applicable to B versionOf A, C versionOf A (i.e. versionOf as a subtype of IVPof), and I can see 'revisionOf' applying to C revisionOf B (i.e. revisionOf is a subtype of derivation). If I understand, you're talking about B and C when you say: > >> 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. Is that correct? If so: How would you relate B and C to A? If D is produced from C by the same type of process (e.g. another text edit) as was used to produce C from B, would it be a revision? Would there be anything one could infer between D and A? Jim > > 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 13:04:44 UTC