RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I think that from your point of view, and perhaps most people in the WG
> share this opinion, an entity can be an IVPof another entity even when the
> the second characterize a different version (state) of the first.

No - I think we're talking about IVPof between something mutable (a document whose text can evolve) and other characterizations in which that mutability is not allowed (i.e. versions with fixed text).


> 
> I don't share this view. In the example that you gave, although B and C are
> versions of the same document, I view them as entities that characterize
> 'different' things, and so C is not an IVPof B. 

I think we actually agree - B and C are not IVPs of each other.  

>In other words, the way I see it is
> that B is an entity that is a characterization of a document  A1, and C is an
> entity that is a characterization of a document A2. A1 and A2 are different
> things, despite the fact that one of them is a version of the other. Note also
> that A1 and A2 are not represented in the model, the only representations
> that we have of them is via the entities that characterize them, i.e., B and C.

I think my example is consistent with this. I'm just allowing for representation of the living document as a third entity.

Jim


> 
> Khalid
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/08/2011 14:03, Myers, Jim wrote:
> >> 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 17:23:21 UTC