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

Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:43:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4F05EF53.8020004@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

The new Alternate and Specialization records seem to make sense to me.

- Looking at the definitions of *specializationOf* and *alternateOf*, I 
for few seconds was wondering if it is a good idea to define a more 
general relationship that simply says that two entity records are 
representations of the same entity, without specifying if there is 
difference in abstraction or context. But, I changed my mind as a 
result, and I now think that the general relationship that I was looking 
for is *alternateOf* itself. Indeed, such a relationship seems to be 
usable in both cases, i.e., different abstractions and/or different 
contexts. In other words, what I am suggesting is that:
specializationOf(e1,e2) implies alternateOf(e1,e2)

Does that make sense?

- *alternateOf* is transitive.

Thanks, khalid

On 15/12/2011 15:25, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in response to the comments about complementarity on the wiki and on 
> the list, we have prepared a revised version of the section,
> where "complementarity" disappears in favour of "viewOf", and the 
> definition is hopefully simplified and more in line with the
> expectations:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-complement-of    
> (the anchor name hasn't changed :-))
>
> this is for feedback as per today's agenda
>
> atb -Paolo
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:43:48 UTC

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