Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

Hi Satya,

The stuffs may be modelled in different ontologies, and hence may not 
have necessarily
the same properties.


I have added two further comments.

-For instance, a rectangle A may have varying length and width, whereas 
B, an IVP of A, may have a invariant area.

-The stuff states modelled by A and B are consistent: these states may 
be modelled by different ontologies. It is left to the asserter to 
establish their consistency (outside the scope of PIL).

Cheers,
Luc

On 21/06/11 00:23, Satya Sahoo wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >
>
>