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

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:55:36 -0500
Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <159FFE53-3566-4C9A-ADDF-F77BC7A9E9EA@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> Response interleaved.
> 
> On 02/14/2012 10:29 AM, James Cheney wrote:
>> What's the use case?  More generally, in WD3 at least, there are no examples of alternateOf or specializationOf in use (with or without attributes).
>> 
>>   
> 
> You will recall that this is the first draft of this section with alternateOf and specializationOf ...
> 
> I think that for prov-dm, we are coming to the conclusion that we will not define whether these
> relations are symmetric/transitive etc.
> Some communities may want to define specialized version that are symmetric/transitive.


FWIW, I very much like the conceptual description of altOf and specOf at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-alternate-specialization

I would be sad if the transitive/anti-symmetric/symmetric definitions left because I think it helps the interpretation.
But if they left and only the conceptual description stayed, I could get by.

-Tim
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:56:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT