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: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:29:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=S1JfDoBukvMzJh187fVj=BPcYUYCAZZeW1w0K-s-y5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>  On 2 Apr 2012, at 18:54, "Jim McCusker" <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 2. Is alternate reflexive or not?  With time based definition it seems it
>> is. With specialisation based definition it seems it may not be (depends
>> whether any entity is always a specialisation of some entity)
>  I think that it's okay for alternate to be reflexive. The controversy
> was whether or not specialization is.
> Reflexivity is not obvious with your definition.  Since for alternateOf
> (e,e) to hold, e needs to be specialisation of an entity. Is it?

Good point. I'll leave it up to those who wish to have reflexivity for
alternateOf to make their case.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 18:30:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:14 UTC