- From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:51:58 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
"forms of influence"? I agree it is difficult to express informal inheritance without implying formal inheritance, which I guess is the issue here. But the current wording states equivalence, e.g. that usage *is* influence, which surely cannot be correct. How about just changing the plural to singular, as below? This is at least grammatical, and hopefully retains the intended meaning. "A usage, start, end, generation, invalidation, communication, derivation, attribution, association, or delegation is also an influence." "A specialization is not, as defined here, also an influence." Sorry I did not spot and raise this before. Sent from my iPad On 22 Nov 2012, at 20:22, "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 20:53:23 UTC