- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:32:38 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- CC: "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Simon, The origin of this terminology is http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference_text That's what we want to capture in a non-formal way. Luc Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom On 22 Nov 2012, at 20:21, "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Simon > > Again approved by group. > > We had to stay away from 'kind of' and 'subtype' because they imply (according to reviewer) inheritance and we don't have inheritance. > > I am happy with any phrasing that stays away from inheritance. The ones you suggested imply inheritance. > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 22 Nov 2012, at 20:13, "Miles, Simon" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hello Luc, >> >> The statement you quote also does not make sense, and is not grammatical. Nothing can "be influence" except influence or a synonym of it. They could be "influences", but I don't think this is what is intended. Again, I assume what is meant is that they are "kinds of influence"? >> >> Thanks >> Simon >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:39, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> I want to be able to contrast the sentence we are discussing with: >>> >>> "Usage, start, end, generation, invalidation, communication, derivation, >>> attribution, association, and delegation are also influence." >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> On 11/22/2012 05:32 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: >>>> Hi Luc, >>>> >>>> OK. It is the phrasing that is odd. I have no problem with "defined as" in itself, but the phrase "defined as Influence", as this does not seem meaningful. >>>> >>>> Given what you say, would one of the following be OK? >>>> >>>> Specialization is not defined as a subtype of Influence >>>> Specialization is not defined as a kind of Influence >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> On 22 Nov 2012, at 17:24, "Luc Moreau" <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> It's one of the changes approved as part of ISSUE-525. >>>>> >>>>> We, in prov-dm, do not define specialization as an influence. Others may >>>>> do, and we don't disallow it. >>>>> So I wouldn't want to say that specialization is not a sub-type of >>>>> Influence, since this seems >>>>> to prevent others from doing it. >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/22/2012 03:53 PM, Miles, Simon wrote: >>>>>> Section 5.5.1: "Specialization is not defined as Influence" sounds odd, and I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean "Specialization is not a kind of Influence" or "Specialization is not a sub-type of Influence"? The same issue applies in Sections 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 for Alternate and MemberOf. >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>>
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 20:33:39 UTC