Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

Hi Paolo,

When you write "e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the 
same entity",
which "same entity" do you mean? Is it e3 in the example?

If so, can we consider an optional third argument for alternateOf,
   alternateOf(e1,e2,e3)  would then imply alternateOf(e2,e1,e3)  for 
the "symmetry" property.

But maybe, this e3 is always such that specializationOf(e1,e3) holds.

In that case, alternatively, we may want to consider some inference:

alternateOf(e1,e2) and specialization(e1,e3) implies specialization(e2,e3).


On 12/15/2011 03:25 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Hi,
> in response to the comments about complementarity on the wiki and on 
> the list, we have prepared a revised version of the section,
> where "complementarity" disappears in favour of "viewOf", and the 
> definition is hopefully simplified and more in line with the
> expectations:
> (the anchor name hasn't changed :-))
> this is for feedback as per today's agenda
> atb -Paolo

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 14:11:07 UTC