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

Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:31:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4F1434DA.1050202@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Luc

I am hoping to simplify the relations, I am not sure this goes in the same direction. I think we are very close to something that we 
can agree on

I think we'll just go with the following, in line with the latest reply from Graham:
> if you prefer to go with alternativeOf and speclializationOf as
> primitives, with the appropriate intuitions asserted as constraints, I think
> that's fine too.
whether a specialization is a sub-property of alternate may be something we don't have to decide, either. it seems that we are 
complicating our lives one way or the other (I am hoping Jim can clarify his argument, I didn't quite get the gist of it)

... all of which makes the current text roughly what I would go for  :-)

I think of alternateOf as non-functional and transitive, which gives us "clusters of alternates". We may later decide that it is 
convenient to add properties that make a set of alternates into a lattice.

and specializationOf should be anti-symmetric and transitive

--Paolo


On 1/16/12 2:10 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> When you write "e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the
> same entity",
> which "same entity" do you mean? Is it e3 in the example?
>
> If so, can we consider an optional third argument for alternateOf,
>     alternateOf(e1,e2,e3)  would then imply alternateOf(e2,e1,e3)  for
> the "symmetry" property.
>
> But maybe, this e3 is always such that specializationOf(e1,e3) holds.
>
> In that case, alternatively, we may want to consider some inference:
>
> alternateOf(e1,e2) and specialization(e1,e3) implies specialization(e2,e3).
>
> Luc
>
> On 12/15/2011 03:25 PM, 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
>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 14:32:32 UTC

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