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

Re: viewOf / complementOf discussion in 201-12-15 telecon

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:14:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4F030D47.6060006@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
(I saw this earlier, but don't believe I responded)

For the record, I'm OK with "specializationOf" for the relation previously 
described as "viewOf".  That's like a +0.5 - it works for me for now, but I 
can't be sure it won't engender it's own flavour of misinterpretations.  But 
that's probably true of any term we might choose.

#g
--

On 21/12/2011 18:56, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Graham, Stephen, and all
>
> we have made further edits to the viewOf/complementOf section, making further
> simplifications based on the recent discussions. In particular, we have omitted
> all references to the semantics layer which, although required to assert
> properties such as transitivity and symmetry, does not belong in this document.
> Such discussions will most likely move to the PROV-SEM space.
>
> One key change is the name of the relations. We felt that "viewOf" for the "more
> concrete / stronger characterization" relation was misleading, and we opted for
> specializationOf().
> Similarly, complementOf / foobar is now alternateOf().
>
> Feedback welcome as usual.
>
> Regards,
> -Paolo
>
> On 12/21/11 3:09 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> Paolo,
>>
>> Broadly this looks good to me, but I think you may have copied my typo:
>>
>> > foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(x, a) and viewOf(x, b)
>>
>> should rather be
>>
>> > foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(a, x) and viewOf(b, x)
>>
>> (I.e. there exists some x such that both a and b are a view of that x.)
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Also, a comment, but I don't think it impacts the proposal:
>>
>> > The fundamental assumption that an entity represents /exactly one/ 'real world
>> > thing' seems to be built into the current semantics already, and I would be
>> > surprised if it weren't, so I see no problem.
>>
>> The problem I see is deciding what constitutes a "real world thing", and the
>> /possibility/ that we have viewOf(a, b) where both a and b might be considered
>> to be real world things.
>>
>> If we don't need to refer (formally) to real world things, which I think the
>> current proposal does not, then this is just a rhetorical device to explain the
>> intuition and we don't need to be further concerned about the detail here.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:32:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC