W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:28:12 +0000
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, ProvenanceWorking Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f103fa35cf6eb49de517b39c68d622a2o31ISJ08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1497151D-38C9-4EE1-8608-24A650026FB3@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Dear all,

To align prov-dm with the semantics, I am suggesting to use the following definition

Two entities are alternates if they refer to the same thing at overlapping times,


instead of the one referring to specialisation.  Objection?




Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:06, "Jim McCusker" <mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote:

Refer is fine, but there may be people in the semantics community who will be more picky. Refer also has a specific meaning in HTTP. If others think that denote is too technical, we can try refer or represent and see what feedback we get from the community.

Jim

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote:
What about using using "refer" ?

But I'm fine with denote if that's the best word.

Cheers
Paul


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2012, at 13:49, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote:

The intent is that alternative of is defined in terms of specialization. Using examples may clear up any confusion.

The use of denote is taken from the RDF spec. We need something to distinguish between the symbols and the things themselves here, since we are saying that two symbols stand for the same common thing. "denote" is the best technical word, but maybe we need a less technical explanation after the definition.

Jim

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl<mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl>> wrote:
Hi
I'm worried that using specialization in the definition of alternate. It might confuse people or is the intent that alternate is built on specialization?

Also the use of denote doesn't seem to have that common sense ease that the other definitions have.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
Paul


On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:19, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:


On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:


On Mar 23, 2012 6:32 PM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk<mailto:soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 16:44, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote:
>


> .. not sure if we should include "roles" here as it would be confusing
> with prov:hadRole (the old EntityInRole discussion).

My intention is to use this to provide roles to entities within a particular context. We could leave this out, if it's too confusing.


I'd suggest dropping this from the definition and just using it in your application.


> The current example of Bob with Facebook account is not very good. Why
> would bobWithFacebook be an alternative of bobWithTwitter? Just
> because they share bob as a parent specialization? Why would you form
> such entities?


Because Bob exhibits different sets of behaviors in each of these environments.
He might be more casual on Facebook, but maintain a professional demeanor on Twitter. You're getting to know "two different people" (two altOf), even if they are the same person (the common specOf)

Even if you know the Bob behind Facebook, you may not know the Bob behind Twitter.

BTW, I added an example that uses alt and spec for real.
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-19-derived-named-graph-attribution


JimAtYale and JimAtRPI being specializations of JimMcCusker (in general) are better examples, probably.

> The BBC News home page today is a specialization of the BBC home page.
> That could be a good one.
>
>
>
> The BBC news home page today is a specialization of the BBC news page
> in general. BBC does not provide a URI for a given day's news page, so
> we mint our own:
>
>
> specializationOf(bbcNews2012-03-23, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/>)
>
>
> The mobile news page is an alternative of the desktop news page. They
> are both specialization of (here unspecified) entity.
>
> alternativeOf(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/>, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/>)

This is a perfect example.

+10000

-Tim


> The mobile news page of today is a specialization of the mobile news page:
>
> specializationOf(bbcNewsMobile2012-03-23, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/>)
>
>
> This implies (as /news/mobile and /news/ have a common specialization):
>
> alternativeOf(bbcNews2012-03-23, bbcNewsMobile2012-03-23)

Yes, this all correctly follows.

Jim




--
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu<mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330<tel:%28203%29%20785-6330>
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



--
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
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 17:28:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:02 GMT