ComplementarityUseCases
From Provenance WG Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→"viewOf" as the fubndemental underpinning relation (GK)) |
(→"viewOf" as the fundemental underpinning relation (GK)) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
As a notion, "viewOf" is quite easy to understand (if not describe), and is the basic idea which explains relationships between Resources/Entities which allows us to make provenance statements with enduring truth, hence tractability for analysis. | As a notion, "viewOf" is quite easy to understand (if not describe), and is the basic idea which explains relationships between Resources/Entities which allows us to make provenance statements with enduring truth, hence tractability for analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Use-case: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Weather in London on Thursday" is a view of "Weather in London", where we may assign specific provenance to the formetr but not the latter. | ||
== "viewOf" as an orthogonal dimension of derivation == | == "viewOf" as an orthogonal dimension of derivation == | ||
Revision as of 17:09, 1 December 2011
Contents |
Complementarity Use Cases
"viewOf" as the fundemental underpinning relation (GK)
For me, the relationship I call "viewOf, where "A viewOf B" means that A is a constrained view or version of B (e.g. "Luc in Boston" is a constrained view of "Luc"), is the fundamental underpinning on which other kinds of complementarity may be built.
As a notion, "viewOf" is quite easy to understand (if not describe), and is the basic idea which explains relationships between Resources/Entities which allows us to make provenance statements with enduring truth, hence tractability for analysis.
Use-case:
"Weather in London on Thursday" is a view of "Weather in London", where we may assign specific provenance to the formetr but not the latter.
