Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

Luc

I have made amends in my latest email of 1/2 hour ago or so, where I ack that the two relations are not on the same level, i.e.,

alternateOf is about things
specializationOf is about entities

as James suggested

This can be reflected it the text once we agree, as usual

-Paolo


On 1/16/12 5:10 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I think that multiple conversations are touching the very issue: it's
> connecting
> to the discussion on identifiers.
>
> In his introduction, Paolo has defined these relations as being
> between two records (i.e. two descriptions).  However, later on, the
> same terminology is no longer used.
>
> Luc
>
> On 01/16/2012 04:09 PM, James Cheney wrote:
>> In that case, would you (or Luc) also agree with describing "specializationOf(e1,e2)" as "e1 and e2 describe the same thing, and e1 is more detailed/specific than e2"?
>>
>> The concern I have about specalizationOf is that it is about the descriptions, not the described things.  I can rationalize alternateOf as saying that "e1 and e2 refer to the same thing", which is almost what Luc wrote, but to rationalize specializationOf I need e1 and e2 to refer to descriptions, not things themselves.  (I think it is this distinction that is one of the root causes of confusion here.)
>>
>> --James
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>>
>>
>>> thing (we just crossed in the mail)
>>> -Paolo
>>>
>>> On 1/16/12 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add on to this, did we really mean
>>>>
>>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same entity
>>>>
>>>> or did we mean
>>>>
>>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same THING?
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~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 17:15:00 UTC