Re: PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of

On 7/29/11 10:02 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/57
>
> Raised by: Luc Moreau
> On product:
>
>
>
> The revised
> (w.r.t. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of)
> treatment of IVP-of, and relabeling as "complement-of" completely
> overturns my understanding of what this was intended to capture. I
> understood the whole point of A IVP-of B was intended to capture the
> notion that A denotes a contextually constrained form of the entity
> denoted by B.  I don't see what useful purpose this relation serves.
We have tried to explain the intent of complement-of as a generalization of IVP-of in the draft: 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#IVP-of
To the extent that two BOBs provide two perspective on an entity, both of which are partial, the intent is to establish a 
correspondence so that it makes sense to take the union (modulo some mapping) of the two sets of attributes. This reults in more 
complete knowledge about the entity within a certain time interval.
>
> > From a practical perspective, given the asymmetric nature of IVP-of
> (as was) it is easy to express the effect of complement-of in RDF by
> introducing a new entity node.  But I see no way of constructing the
> strict constraining role of IVP using complement-of.
The intent is that B IVP-of A is the special case of B complement-of A when the set of attributes of A is strictly contained in that 
of B.

-Paolo