- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:19 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim, I don't think there is a move away from the ConsolidatedConcepts document. But we are definitely in search of terminology that is more intuitive! Reason why the word "state" remained so visible is that the definition of thing stated: have properties modeling aspects of *stuff states*. How the WG decides to tackle ISSUE-28 is up for debate! Regards, Luc On 07/07/2011 08:43 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: > Not being at the meeting (wish I could be!), it is not clear whether this represents a shift in thinking about things and invariant views or perspectives on things or not. I think a critical aspect of going away from the word state was that I don't think we are talking about states - a file is not a state of a document whereas it could be a view/perspective of a document, e.g. something in a different ontology that shares state/real stuff with the first thing. Does this issue represent a shift back towards a model based on states? Or is it just shorthand for needing to describe when two things are views/perspectives of something? > > Jim > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:34 PM >> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org >> Subject: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to >> the same entity >> >> >> ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same >> entity >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28 >> >> Raised by: >> On product: >> >> >> >> >> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 11:18:55 UTC