Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

Dear all,

Thanks for your very useful suggestions.

I have drafted a revised section in a separate file
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html 


Does capture what has been discussed so far?

Also, if specialization(a,b) is it the case that alternateOf(a,b)?

Regards,
Luc

On 25/03/2012 17:16, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Jim McCusker wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org 
>> <mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round to,
>>     I question whether we actually need to have these concepts in the DM.
>>
>>     Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain
>>     the relationship between provenance entities and (possibly
>>     dynamic) real world things.  With the looser description of the
>>     provenance model terms, I don't see why this level of detail is
>>     needed in the data model.
>>
>>
>> Then you don't recollect correctly.
>
> I remember IPV-of as the "relationship between provenance entities and 
> (possibly dynamic) real world things", but specializationOf has 
> developed into a more general association between entities that can 
> include this original purpose. Indeed, eg-19 [1] is using alt and 
> specOf for _exactly_ this original "frozen snapshot of changing 
> things" notion -- applied to datasets and web services.
>
> Instead of digging up the archives, perhaps we can rally around altOf 
> and specOf being the tools we use to associate (and make sense of) 
> assertions made by the combinations of scruffy and proper provenance.
> (Like Simon's extension to Stian's BBC example). In addition, it's an 
> incredibly useful construct for one's own "proper" modeling.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-19-derived-named-graph-attribution
>
>> They were defined because there was an acknowledgement that there 
>> were multiple symbols that denoted a common thing in the world. 
>> Sometimes they reflected different aspects of the same thing 
>> (alternativeOf) and sometimes they had a subsumptive quality 
>> (specializationOf).
>
> I think these previous two statements contradict (and steer scarily 
> towards owl:sameAs, which alt and specOf are certainly _not_)
> Different aspects of the same thing are not the same things.
>
> -Tim
>
>>
>> Jim
>> -- 
>> Jim McCusker
>> Programmer Analyst
>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>> Yale School of Medicine
>> james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/>
>>
>> PhD Student
>> Tetherless World Constellation
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
>> http://tw.rpi.edu <http://tw.rpi.edu/>
>