W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:04:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4FEC7293.7020009@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:16 UTC