- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:41:04 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|3d461ed7aa350f1f524e6576a1ac50c9o2PMgQ08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F70E270>
BTW, has somebody got better names for first and second alternate? http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.firstAlternate http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.secondAlternate Thanks, Luc On 26/03/12 22:38, Luc Moreau wrote: > 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 21:43:05 UTC