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

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

From: Cresswell, Stephen <stephen.cresswell@tso.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:02:35 -0000
Message-ID: <F22D0BFCDD4DDC44B92C4E24D751CB93CD229D@W3EXC017023.theso.co.uk>
To: "Paolo Missier" <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C provenance WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

Hi Paolo,

I think the current definitions look good.  I think the properties of
the two relations are fine, and the names "specializationOf" and
"alternateOf" are fine.  

My only concern is that there may be many different notions of
specialization, and the current text avoids formally defining one.  I
don't really mind that either.

Regards,

Stephen Cresswell

Tel:  +44 (0) 01603 69 6926

Web:  www.tso.co.uk

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paolo Missier [mailto:Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk]
> Sent: 21 December 2011 18:57
> To: Graham Klyne
> Cc: Paolo Missier; W3C provenance WG
> Subject: Re: viewOf / complementOf discussion in 201-12-15 telecon
> 
> 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
> > --
> 
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> 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 Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:28:27 UTC

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