- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:49:27 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon,
Still trying to understand what you wrote.
Paraphrasing your example,
Someone asserts that a collection C2 is derived from collection C1 by
removing e from C1
You claim that C2 is not necessarily derived from e,
or
do you claim that C2 is never derived from e,
Is it a correct analogy? which claim are you making?
Thanks,
Luc
On 10/11/2011 10:46, Simon Miles wrote:
> In my example, the designer may assert that the first draft page was
> derived from the banner image ("DRAFT") that it contains, while the
> publisher may assert that the published page (excluding the banner)
> was derived from the first draft. But the published page is not
> derived from the banner image, because it would not make any
> difference should the banner have been different, or even not been
> present at all, e.g. the first draft could still have existed even if
> the banner had been deleted earlier. To allow a transitive
> derivation-like relation to exist, it must have semantics so weak as
> to allow the published page to be linked to the banner. I understood
> this weakened relation to be dependedOn. This relation does not remove
> the need for an actual derivation relation to be expressed. I don't
> have a strong opinion on whether a transitive relation needs to exist.
>
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 13:50:05 UTC