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 16:29:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4F145064.6070908@ncl.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
James, Luc

Here is Stephen's example from the use cases on the wiki:  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:Statestimescales.png

here luc-at-mit is a specialization of luc-in-boston, with the intended meaning that it "further characterizes" the /description/ of 
the /same/ Luc thing.

This means that

- specialization, as James suggests, is indeed about descriptions and therefore not on par with alternateOf, and

- specializationOf(e1, e2) only makes sense on the assumption that alternateOf(e1,e2) holds, that is, that e1, 2, are about the same 
thing (Luc in the example).

this makes alternateOf(e1,e2) a necessary condition for specializationOf(e1, e2) to hold.

At the same time, this rules out the semantics we have seen proposed earlier:

alternateOf(e1,e2)  == exists (c) : specializationOf(e1,c) and specializationOf(e2,c)

and instead (IMO) calls for an interpretation domain in which you can express Things and you can say when Things t1, t2 are the same:

alternateOf(e1,e2) only if (or "requires")   I(e1) = I(e2)   where I(e) is the Thing that e characterizes  (sorry James I don't have 
your semantics in front of me, you may be saying the same thing)

makes sense?

-Paolo





On 1/16/12 4:09 PM, James Cheney wrote:
> In that case, would you (or Luc) also agree with describing "specializationOf(e1,e2)" as "e1 and e2 describe the same thing, and e1 is more detailed/specific than e2"?
>
> The concern I have about specalizationOf is that it is about the descriptions, not the described things.  I can rationalize alternateOf as saying that "e1 and e2 refer to the same thing", which is almost what Luc wrote, but to rationalize specializationOf I need e1 and e2 to refer to descriptions, not things themselves.  (I think it is this distinction that is one of the root causes of confusion here.)
>
> --James
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>
>> thing (we just crossed in the mail)
>> -Paolo
>>
>> On 1/16/12 4:03 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>>
>>> To add on to this, did we really mean
>>>
>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same entity
>>>
>>> or did we mean
>>>
>>> e1 and e2 provide two different characterization of the same THING?
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
-----------  ~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 16:29:50 UTC

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