- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:04:51 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
If you think I'm just "playing with words", why don't you just go ahead and publish and let me make my case in a wider forum? I'd really be happy to be proved wrong, but nobody here is convincing me. #g -- On 28/06/2012 13:12, Luc Moreau wrote: > Let's not play with words. > We made it clear that any "The descriptions in a bundle allow an entity to be > interpreted in domain-specific manner". > So this interpretation is not part of PROV. > > The only thing we want in PROV is to be able to define a specialization where an > additional aspect is fixed: a bundle (which is another entity). > > Luc > > > On 06/28/2012 12:30 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> On 28/06/2012 09:26, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> The rated agent tool:Bob-2011-11-16 is generated after the tool has processed >>> the contents of ex:run1. >>> In that case, the syntax, by this I mean the bundle, is part of the semantics. >> >> Eek! This sounds like pure non-sense to me. >> >> How can syntax be part of semantics? The nearest I can think of is Herbrand >> interpretations, but I can't see that applying here. You can't even start to >> go there without having a syntactic and corresponding semantic structure to >> start with. >> >> #g >> -- >
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 15:06:36 UTC