Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 17:06, Luc Moreau <> wrote:
> Following comments, I have tried to simplify the definitions of 'thing' and
> 'IVP of'  further.

+1 with the qualification of correspondence, for instance:

The asserter is free to choose what "corresponding properties" above
means. The corresponding properties might match many-to-many, eg.
rectangle A may have varying length and width, whereas B, an IVP of A,
may have a invariant area.

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 10:08:14 UTC