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

RE: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:47:33 +0000
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC2302966644@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: stian@mygrid.org.uk [mailto:stian@mygrid.org.uk] On Behalf Of Stian
> Soiland-Reyes
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:02 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP
> of" each other [Conceptual Model]
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 16:02, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:
> > +1 – I think the common meaning is at odds with what we want (though
> > +it is
> > certainly more pronounceable than ivpOf)
> +1 as well, I am still confused by "complement of". It sounds like it
> is more like "at some point had a kind of overlap".
> I had failed to pick up from the model that now if B wasComplementOf A
> then B is allowed to live for longer than A.
> In http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-

> file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#expression-complement-of
> wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l2)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)
> which to me don't match the picture - m2 is fully within beginning and end
> of L1 - while m3 is overlapping parts of L1 and parts of L2.

I think so - looks like a typo.

> Was the intention here to assert:
> wasComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l1)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m4, rs_l2)
> wasComplementOf(rs_m4, rs_l3)
> ?
> Ie. saying that "At some undefined duration during lifetime of rs_m3, its
> fixed and dynamic attributes matched those fixed by rs_l1"?

This says that for the whole overlapping time period when rs_m3 and rs_l1 co-exist, rs_m3 must have the location of rs_l1, assuming location is defined for rs_m3, and vice versa - rs_L1 must have rs_m3's membership count. I think this is directly from the Constraint: wasComplementOf-neccsary-cond box, item 1.

> So there is not any way to say that for the whole duration of rs_m1 it was
> also sharing the attributes of rs_l1? (Ie. if someone wanted to know the
> (functional property) location for rs_m1 (when membership was
> 250) you can only conclude "At least at some point it was 'loc2' - but it could
> have been anything else as well".  This is what the old IVPof stated.

I think you conclude that rs_m1 only existed at loc2 because it's duration is completely contained by that of rs_l1 (not sure why rs_l1 has loc2 instead of loc1 as a value...). The converse would not be true - rs_l1 only had a membership of 250 in 1900 (note the diagram shows rs_m1 having a longer duration, but its attribute means it cannot exist outside the year 1900...). Again  - I think the language in the Constraint: box addresses this...


> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:48:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:09 UTC