Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

What is interoperable about subtypes?
Nothing, except that they are commonly viewed as what is defined in PROV.
So all interoperable parties only see prov:alternativeOf.


my:particularAlternateOf 
    rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:alternateOf .

:cup_from_right     my:particularAlternateOf   :cup_from_left .

==>

:cup_from_right     my:particularAlternateOf   :cup_from_left .
:cup_from_right     prov:alternateOf   :cup_from_left .

But when I share that around, the only thing anybody understands is  the "interoperable" one --  prov:alternateOf.


So I don't see the need to "bring subtyping in" to PROV. Because that bit of knowledge doesn't increase interoperability.

-Tim






On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi Tim 
> But what about sub typing of alternateOf?
> 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:48, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi James,
>>> 
>>> I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include
>>> an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy,
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html
>>> we have added them.
>> 
>> -1 leans towards bloat
>> 
>>> 
>>> I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and vice-versa.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>>> 
>>> As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations.
>> 
>> The subtyping can be placed onto your Note(id,[prov:type = "my subtype").
>> This would let you reuse the same hadAnnotation relation.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes for IVPof.
>>> This could also be encoded with attributes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 02/14/2012 09:18 AM, James Cheney wrote:
>>>> While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity.
>>>> 
>>>> I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense.  If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of.
>>>> 
>>>> I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML.
>>>> 
>>>> --James
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 14:16:13 UTC