Difference between revisions of "ComplementarityUseCases"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
("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

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.

"viewOf" as an orthogonal dimension of derivation

See also