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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:32:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4F16CA02.8090305@ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>

(BTW I can't keep up either, esp. with a pile of students exams to mark...).

  On 1/17/12 5:29 PM, Myers, Jim wrote:
> I can see how the definition you have leads to the consequence you state, but it seems like the use case here is one we should be able to support - someone reports on the activities of the customer-in-the-red-chair over time and others report that Paolo and Stian were in the chair at various times and we'd like to have enough prov information to allow users to figure out who did what.
critically (I think), you have reintroduced time which is not in Stian's example. If we discount time as Stian and I did, i.e. we 
assume two observers look at the same scene at the same time, would my conclusion be more reasonable?  If so, then maybe the old 
idea of accounting for "temporal overlaps" in the definition of alternate needs to come back. And if it does, then we are back to 
some earlier "pseudo-transitivity" property that was discussed a while ago, and was dismissed as awkward, and I would agree on 
giving up on transitivity altogether. Would that help address your other question:
> If alternateOf is not capable of doing this, do we have some other mechanism that can? Or is the use case out of scope?

> -- Jim
> ________________________________________
> From: Paolo Missier [Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:16 PM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Paolo Missier; Stian Soiland-Reyes; Luc Moreau; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: complementOf ->  viewOf: proposed text
> Jim
> (haven't read your latest email, except to spot that you disagree with transitivity, but I am not prepared to argue just now)
> I think unless you are prepared to accept that they are different characterization of the same real-world thing, then they should
> not be alternates of each other. (at least) one of the two is not the customer in the red chair.
> -Paolo
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 13:33:30 UTC

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