W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2011

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

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:18:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4E7C6B20.40603@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi,

here is another old issue that we would like to consider resolved, as it was raised against the old F2F definitions.
Specifically, the definition and purpose of complementOf is now fairly stable in sec. 5.3.5: 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-complement-of,
so if that's not clear I suggest that the issue be reopened against that definition.

One note is still timely, though:
>  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.
one question that was raised during the 9.22.11 call (by myself) is whether the model should be constrained by the modelling 
capabilities of SWeb languages. In this case, I believe the answer is no, i.e., a way should be found to encode its definition as 
per the conceptual model.

-Paolo



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.
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 11:19:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT