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

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:38:14 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a68dc544f0a5ef61a6db8f574df5361ao2PMcS08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F70E1C6.5040506@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paolo,

I have updated the text to make it clear that the common entity does not 
need
to be identified.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/21b96bf05727

Cheers,
Luc

On 26/03/12 15:59, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Luc
>
>
> On 3/26/12 2:54 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 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?
> I think so. To me it is important that when we say
> " They are both specialization of an (unspecified) entity." eg in the 
> first example, it is clear that there no obligation to say anything 
> about the common entity that they specialize. This, however, contrasts 
> with the definition itself:
> " An entity is alternate of another if they are both a specialization 
> of some common entity."
> It is not clear what to make of this defining property of alternates 
> -- it gives an existential condition which is not actionable in 
> general. So to me this is potentially confusing.
>>
>> Also, if specialization(a,b) is it the case that alternateOf(a,b)?
> no. I recall that we've been there before. At some point there was a 
> discussion on specialization having a "top" and being transitive and 
> therefore, with this additional inferences, everything would collapse.
>
> Regards,
>   -Paolo
>
>>
>> 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/>
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> -----------  ~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, 26 March 2012 21:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT