- From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:32:00 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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 >
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 17:33:20 UTC