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

Hi Jim,

Response interleaved.

On 31/03/2012 17:40, Jim McCusker wrote:
> A few ofus noticed that there are a few think-o's in the 
> specialization definition:
>
> An entity is a specialization of another if they both refer to some 
> common thing but the former is a more constrained entity than the 
> former. The common entity does not need to be identified.
>
> An entity is a specialization of another if they both refer to some 
> common thing but the former is a more constrained entity than the 
> *latter*.
>

Updated. thanks.

> The last sentence should be removed, because the "common entity" is 
> actually from the alternateOf definition.
>
It was updated to the following, since it refers to thing in the current 
definition.

The common thing does not need to be identified.

Luc

> Jim
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:46 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk 
> <mailto:jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On 30/03/12 10:01, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     I am getting conflicting messages on this topic!
>>
>>     James has listed some properties derived from the semantics
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0470.html
>>     But not all of them seem to be aligned with what we are reading
>>     on this thread.
>>
>>     So, I started drafting a section in prov-dm part II listing the
>>     properties of these relations [1].
>>
>>     I am proposing to justify each property either by reasoning based
>>     on its definition,
>>     or by a counter-example.
>>
>>     *Your suggestions are needed to help us complete this section. *
>>
>>     James, unless my reasoning is incorrect, I do not have
>>     transitivity for specializationOf.
>
>     Hi Luc,
>
>     Your reasoning (quoting from [1])  is:
>
>>     Specialization is /not transitive/. Indeed if
>>     specializationOf(e1,e2) holds, then there is some common thing,
>>     say e1-2 they both refer to. Likewise, if specializationOf(e2,e3)
>>     holds, then there is some common thing, say e2-3 they both refer
>>     to. It does not follow there is a common thing both e1 and e3
>>     refer to.
>
>     In the WD3 formal semantics [2], I modeled
>     entities-referring-to-things as a function thingOf : Entity -> Thing.
>
>     Thus, if thingOf(e1) = e1-2 = thingOf(e2) and thingOf(e2) = e2-3 =
>     thingOf(e3) then (by transitivity of equality) e1-2 = e2-3 and all
>     three entities refer to the same thing, e1-2.
>
>     Of course, it is an assumption I made that an entity "refers to"
>     exactly one thing.  If we want to allow entities to refer to
>     multiple things, then the reasoning I give above fails, and
>     specializationOf is not necessarily transitive.
>
>     --James
>
>     [1]
>     http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#component4
>     [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3
>
>     The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>     Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu