- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:14:31 +0000
- To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
(I saw this earlier, but don't believe I responded) For the record, I'm OK with "specializationOf" for the relation previously described as "viewOf". That's like a +0.5 - it works for me for now, but I can't be sure it won't engender it's own flavour of misinterpretations. But that's probably true of any term we might choose. #g -- On 21/12/2011 18:56, Paolo Missier wrote: > Graham, Stephen, and all > > we have made further edits to the viewOf/complementOf section, making further > simplifications based on the recent discussions. In particular, we have omitted > all references to the semantics layer which, although required to assert > properties such as transitivity and symmetry, does not belong in this document. > Such discussions will most likely move to the PROV-SEM space. > > One key change is the name of the relations. We felt that "viewOf" for the "more > concrete / stronger characterization" relation was misleading, and we opted for > specializationOf(). > Similarly, complementOf / foobar is now alternateOf(). > > Feedback welcome as usual. > > Regards, > -Paolo > > On 12/21/11 3:09 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Paolo, >> >> Broadly this looks good to me, but I think you may have copied my typo: >> >> > foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(x, a) and viewOf(x, b) >> >> should rather be >> >> > foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(a, x) and viewOf(b, x) >> >> (I.e. there exists some x such that both a and b are a view of that x.) >> >> ... >> >> Also, a comment, but I don't think it impacts the proposal: >> >> > The fundamental assumption that an entity represents /exactly one/ 'real world >> > thing' seems to be built into the current semantics already, and I would be >> > surprised if it weren't, so I see no problem. >> >> The problem I see is deciding what constitutes a "real world thing", and the >> /possibility/ that we have viewOf(a, b) where both a and b might be considered >> to be real world things. >> >> If we don't need to refer (formally) to real world things, which I think the >> current proposal does not, then this is just a rhetorical device to explain the >> intuition and we don't need to be further concerned about the detail here. >> >> #g >> -- >
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:32:58 UTC