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: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:51:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TMjk6Z8=AZoKA0S2TnZaOjH4K82p2r49RL7jgckzTCVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I think that both of our ideas abut specialization fall under our PROV
construct, actually. I don't think we say anymore that if specialization
of(a,b) then everything that's true of b is also true of a. We have simply
moved up a level of abstraction in the discussion when talking about b
instead of a.

Come to think of it, your example isn't valid FRBR. The expression here is
the *content* of that performance, which can't be said to have taken place
on a particular date, only that it was created then, by that performance
(an Activity).

Jim
On Apr 3, 2012 9:24 AM, "Graham Klyne" <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> FWIW, I think it would be wrong to define specialization with FRBR
> concepts.
>
> Let's take FRBR expression and manifestation:
>
> - expression may be a particular performance of a musical composition.
> - manifestation may be a recording reproduced on CD of that performance
>
> I don't think it is coherent to claim that the recording is a
> specialization of the performance.  E.g. the performance takes place on a
> particular date.  That cannot be said of the CD.  Or the performance may
> have been produced by one agent, the CD by another.
>
> I think similar considerations apply across the range of FRBR core
> concepts (work, expression, manifestation, item).
>
> #g
> --
>
> On 02/04/2012 13:38, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Tom De Nies wrote:
>>
>>  +1
>>>
>>> I had trouble understanding the reasoning of this example as well..
>>> In our data model, the email would rather be a collection, and the
>>> signature an element of it, rather than a specialization of it.
>>> A specialization of "this email" would be, for example. the "printed
>>> version on my desk", which is a specialization of "my thoughts on this
>>> email thread".
>>>
>>>
>> +1 (your phrasing is exactly what FRBR addresses; we're borrowing their
>> notions to create a simpler form with atlOf and specOf)
>>
>>
>>  Intuitively, I am having trouble coming up with a counterexample of the
>>> transitivity of our specialization.
>>>
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tom
>>> ---
>>> Tom De Nies
>>> Ghent University - IBBT
>>> Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
>>> Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
>>> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium
>>>
>>> t: +32 9 331 49 59
>>> e: tom.denies@ugent.be
>>>
>>> URL:  http://multimedialab.elis.**ugent.be<http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/4/2 Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.**uk<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>> >
>>>
>>> is this example really reflecting specialisation? The signature is
>>> contained in the email message. Is it a specialisation of it?
>>>
>>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 00:11, "Stian Soiland-Reyes"<soiland-reyes@**
>>> cs.manchester.ac.uk <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  My signature in the end of this email is a specialization of this
>>>> email message, which is a specialization of my thoughts on this email
>>>> thread. However the signature is not a specialization of those
>>>> thoughts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:51:43 GMT

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