W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > June 2011

RE: further comments on IPV

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:08:39 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF20534A239@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, <public-xg-prov@w3.org>

I'm not sure you're confused J The wiki is indeed trying to capture the
case where A and B are different classes, e.g. Documents are not files.
I think your mapping to the same class case is on track (consistent with
the general case definition), but I don't know if it suggests a better
way to generalize than what's on the wiki. 




From: public-xg-prov-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xg-prov-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Missier
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:52 AM
To: <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Subject: further comments on IPV


  I am slowly catching up and I have decided to start from what is
recorded in the wiki rather than trying to playback  long and winding

sorry to vent, but I started with "Concept 'Invariant View or
Perspective on a Thing'" and I am already utterly confused. For a member
of the Model TF who is tasked with a synthesising and reconciling job,
this is not good :-)
So I appended some comments of my own here, which are mostly questions:

The main message is: I really feel the need for some precision, which
doesn't mean formalising at all costs, but at least picking a reference
framework for modelling: ER, objects, UML... something that has, er, a
clear semantics that one can build upon! (ok, so perhaps UML does not
qualify :-))

Regards, -Paolo
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 15:10:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:59 UTC