W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: viewOf / complementOf discussion in 201-12-15 telecon

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:18:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=QhLXVo4jd_3+cjNC3XcEaEd2BC2rDVqVg7i-aJ86tNaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote:

> == Conclusion ==
> I believe this substantiates my previous claim that viewOf is somehow more
> fundamental.  Based on just a simple set-theoretic definition of viewOf, I
> have been able to construct a formal definition of complementOf.  But I
> don't believe it would be as easy to construct a primitive definition of
> complementOf and use just that to define viewOf.

+1 This has been my intuition for a while, I'm glad you were able to
formalize it like this.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 19:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC