RE: IVPT (invariant view or perspective on thing)

One of the reasons I voted for IVPT was to get away from the notion that
we have 'resources' (things, whatever) and 'states' but I think the
discussion has started to evolve back towards that - the term 'snapshot'
seems to go in that direction as well if we have a 'resource' and
'snapshot of a resource' in mind.

The direction I was hoping for was to consider that IVPT was a
relationship between two things that differ only in the sense that the
definition of identity for one includes some state that is not part of
the identity specification of the other. An "egg" and a "cold egg" or a
"cracked egg". A specific set of bytes and a set of bytes in a
particular disk location, a logical set of bytes and a physical encoding
of those bytes on disk in zipped form, thing and version of thing, the
FRBR ladder, etc. 

In all of these cases there are no fully invariant things - a "cold-egg"
can be cracked without ceasing to be a "cold egg" and is really a
resource/thing on its own that just happens to be a more invariant view
of an "egg" resource/thing that is particularly useful when discussing
the heating/cooling history of the egg.

I guess that all implies that I see the question of renaming IVPT as
being a renaming of a relationship between two resources/things.
Minimally that means "snapshot of" rather than "snaphot", but hopefully
a term that better captures the idea of some state rather than all state
being frozen. "Shadow of" in the sense of the more stateful one having
fewer dimensions is probably not a winning term, but perhaps leads in a
useful direction.  "Aspect of"? In the opposite direction perhaps
"Abstraction of"?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>] On Behalf Of Paul Groth
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:33 PM
> To: Daniel Garijo
> Cc: Graham Klyne;
> Subject: Re: IVPT (invariant view or perspective on thing)
> Hi Graham,
> I had proposed the term "snapshot" for IVPT on another thread.
> I don't know what you/others thing of that.
> cheers,
> Paul
> Daniel Garijo wrote:
> > I totally agree with you.
> > Best,
> > Daniel
> >
> > 2011/6/9 Graham Klyne < <>>
> >
> >     While I live with the term IVPT as a way to allow us to move our
> >     discussions forward, I think it would be horrible if it actually
> >     ended up in any of the documents we produce.
> >
> >     I'm not asking for any change now, just giving notice that I
> >     expect us to settle on a better term when we can see better what
> >     we're talking about and what we actually need to say.
> >
> >     #g
> >     --
> >
> >     Jun Zhao wrote:
> >
> >         Dear all,
> >
> >         To bootstrap the development of the model task force, Satya,
> >         Paolo, Khalid and I put together a document [1] highlighting
> >         issues and goals to focus on during the F2F1.
> >
> >         The document is not meant to be definitive. It should be
> >         updated and evolved as discussions raised in the mailing
> >         We hope this document could help with setting expectation
> >         the F2F1 and guidance on the near focus of the WG.
> >
> >         [1]
> >
> >         Best regards,
> >
> >         Jun
> >
> >
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 17:22:49 UTC