- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:11:13 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi, This is just to further specify the semantics of "corressondence". In the comments that follow the defintition in [1], it is stated that "In the definition of IVP of, the term "corresponds" is important since, properties of A may be converted into properties of B (e.g. temperature conversion from Farenheit to Celsius) or can be merged." Are you here thinking of one to one correspondence? In other words, are many to many correspondences allowed? Thanks, khalid [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Further_simplification On 20/06/2011 17:06, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi all, > > Following comments, I have tried to simplify the definitions of > 'thing' and 'IVP of' further. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Further_simplification > > > What do you think? If we are happy with this simplification, we should > try to > get a coherent set of definitions for Generation/Use/Derivation. > > Best regards, > Luc > > > On 06/20/2011 02:42 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>>> From this I'm not sure if "dynamic resource" is useful as a >>> classification, I would go for Luc's view (and our accepted >>> definition) that invariance is just a relation [...] >> >> This would appear to be a consensus! >> >> #g >> >> >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 18:11:42 UTC