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: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:46:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TD17hhkO9mo29_LyviGQWoP6O=_SqtGYVN-xZ9uaCagg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Do they need fully contextualized names? Can they just be a and b, or x and
y? I'm pretty sure this isn't a qualified relation...

Jim

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote:

> **
>
> 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> 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 | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
> http://tw.rpi.edu
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------  ~oo~  --------------
> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UKhttp://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 21:47:23 GMT

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