- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:04:27 +0000
- To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc we may be going around in circles... no, there is no e3. In our favourite example :-), there is Luc, then Luc in boston, Luc back from Boston, etc. So my this example, I should say "thing" rather than "entity", which is one of the two interpretations that JC suggests here below. And the reason we have both alternateOf and specializationOf is that it gives you two different options to express the relationship wrt a common thing. -Paolo Are we happy with that? On 1/16/12 3:49 PM, James Cheney wrote: > Hi, > > This seems relevant to the 3-level vs. 2-level discussion (issue 212): > > Do we want to distinguish between "things" (that can change over time) and "entities" (pieces of information about things bounded by an interval in time)? Or do we want to view a "thing" as the all-encompassing entity that all more-specific entities about it specialize? > > --James > > On Jan 16, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > >> Hi Paolo, >> >> But, what is the answer to this question? I dont know. I think the text should clarify it. >> >> On 01/16/2012 02:31 PM, Paolo Missier wrote: >>> 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? >> Luc >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >> > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 16:04:53 UTC