RE: Definitions and provenance and invariance

I'd like to see this cover cases like the connection between logical document and file - where the document has a 'text string' at a point in time and a file only has a set byte sequence that the asserter, knowing the character encoding, asserts are in correspondence. (I think this is still consistent with the simplified definition, so I'm basically raising this as a further example that goes beyond areas vs. height and width type correspondences to something where things A and B come from different ontologies/are fairly different representations of 'stuff'...)

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:11 PM
> To: Luc Moreau
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Definitions and provenance and invariance
> 
> 
> 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_si

> mplification
> 
> 
> 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_si

> mplification
> >
> >
> > 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 15:41:29 UTC