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 22:41:04 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|3d461ed7aa350f1f524e6576a1ac50c9o2PMgQ08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F70E270.4050107@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>

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 GMT

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