- From: <creed@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 Carl > 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 > > +1 > > #g > -- > >> >> >> 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 Tuesday, 21 June 2011 01:38:11 UTC