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: Cresswell, Stephen <stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:57:02 +0100
Message-ID: <F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93010D99C5@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk>
To: "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

So, the answer to the question that was originally the subject of this
issue,
"Can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" of each other?"
... whose nearest translation to current terminology is ...
"Can two entities be mutually specializationOf each other?"
... turns out, surprisingly, to be "yes"?

Stephen Cresswell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luc Moreau [mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 02 April 2012 22:29
> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually
"IVP
> of" each other [Conceptual Model]
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> With the release of the documents, we are proposing again to close
> this issue pending review.
> 
> Feel free to reopen if WD5 does not address your concerns.
> Regards,
> Luc
> 
> On 11/07/11 12:22, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> > PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of"
each
> other  [Conceptual Model]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29
> >
> > Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
> > On product: Conceptual Model
> >
> >
> > As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the
> possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
> > i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)&  (A IVPof B),
and
> this is surely not intended.
> >
> > This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
> > - A and B both represent the same entity
> > - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have
corresponding
> values.
> > - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable
properties
> of A
> > - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable
properties
> of B
> >
> > Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition)
> that real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may
disallow
> > "IPV of" in this situation.  However, unless that is guaranteed, I
think
> that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a
definition)
> should additionally require that:
> > "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable
properties of
> B"
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
>
________________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************************************
This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.
***********************************************************************************************

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 08:57:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:07:03 GMT