Re: Different senses of specialization


> The "same thing" isn't always well-defined. Is the wood the "same
> thing" as the chair?
> In my example, file x and y have a significant number of AV pairs in
> common. Is that enough that for some definition of "same thing", they
> are indeed the same thing?
> I like these definitions for their simplicity and the almost
> mechanical way you can determine them. They just depend on the
> definition of "same thing". If we leave that open to the provenance
> describer to determine, this could accomodate whatever use cases were
> needed.

I totally agree that we should really let the provenance providers to 
decide by themselves when they want to determine two things are same thing.

I have thought this is the beauty of our model. And whatever definitions 
we have in the end, it should still permit providers to do so, and not 
confuse them or restrict them. It's the mechanism that we are interested 
in providing, not a define distinction for a very philosophical topic:)

-- Jun
> In my example, I could make that call and assert that since they were
> produced by an equivalent application of a reproducible process, the
> files should be equivalent and therefore specializationsOf some ideal
> thing and therefore x is alternateOf y.
> Curt

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:51:45 UTC