# Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

```Hi Luc,
+1 for the definition of "thing".

Regarding IVP:
> the properties they share must have corresponding values
does not follow from the earlier definition part of IVT "An assertion "B is
an IVP of A" ..."
According to the definition if they represent the "same stuff" the
properties (or its values) should be equivalent - correspondence is a weaker
notion (warm temperature may correspond to 32 degrees Celsius in UK, while
it may correspond to 38 degrees celsius in Vietnam).

Further, the example in the Comments section needs to be slightly modified:
1. The temperature conversion from Fahrenheit to Celsius - both represent
the temperature property of A and B in different units. If I understand it
correctly, the temperature and not the unit is the property for A and B
2. The "value" of the temperature property need to be equivalent, albeit
expressed in different units.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi Khalid,
> Yes I thought many to many was possible.
> Luc
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
>
> On 20 Jun 2011, at 19:11, "Khalid Belhajjame" <
> Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 23:23:56 UTC