ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins
logical definition and comments on prov-constratins
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- prov-dm-constraints
- Raised by:
- Paul Groth
- Opened on:
- 2012-10-23
- Description:
- Please see the following public comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0004.html - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification): Suggestion to replace procedural specification with (equivalent, but shorter and less prescriptive) declarative theory in First-Order Logic [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-04-11)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification): Suggestion to replace procedural specification with (equivalent, but shorter and less prescriptive) declarative theory in First-Order Logic [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2013-03-08)
- Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-06)
- Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-11-01)
- PROV-WG response to comments on constraints (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-11-01)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
- Re: Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
- Reminder: Review of responses to PROV-CONSTRAINTS public comments (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-31)
- Review of PROV-CONSTRAINTS issues (ISSUE-576, ISSUE-580, ISSUE-577, ISSUE-578, ISSUE-581) (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-29)
- PROV-ISSUE-588 (strictly-precedes-irreflexive): It is never specified explicitly that 'strictly-precedes' is irreflexive [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-587 (rdf-analogies): Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-586 (toplevel-bundle-description): The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-585 (applying-satisfying-constraints): Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-584 (merging): The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-583 (equivalent-instances-in-bundles): Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-582 (document-instance): 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-581 (avoid-specifying-algorithm): Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-580 (drop-syntactic-sugar-definitions): Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-579 (declarative-fol-specification): Suggestion to replace procedural specification with (equivalent, but shorter and less prescriptive) declarative theory in First-Order Logic [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- PROV-ISSUE-578 (equivalence): Use of 'equivalent' incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-25)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-25)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-10-23)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-23)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-10-23)
- Re: PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2012-10-23)
- Re: Issues of PROV Constraints (from p.t.groth@vu.nl on 2012-10-23)
- PROV-ISSUE-576: logical definition and comments on prov-constratins [prov-dm-constraints] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-10-23)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log