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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:05 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e91b7356923ecef0f87eecfda273eddco2QHS908L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F71EA95.2020308@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim,

Agreed, we could be silent about reflexivity, which means we don't say 
whether specializationOf is
reflexive or irreflexive.

That's a conservative position, I am fine with.


The English definition uses the term 'more constrained' which is 
probably too vague to decide one or the other.

  An entity is a specialization of another if they both refer to some 
common thing
  but the former is a *more constrained* entity than the former. The 
common entity does not need to be identified.


Luc


On 03/27/2012 05:20 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is or not. I'm willing to support proposals as to 
> why it might be, but I haven't seen any good arguments for it yet. 
> Even if we think it might be, we may want to hold off on declaring it.
>
> Neither rdfs:subClassOf or skos:broader are reflexive, and I think the 
> same arguments apply to making them reflexive. People who are 
> interested in having a reflexive specializationOf could make a 
> subproperty (if it's domain specific) or superproperty (if they think 
> that it always holds), depending on their needs. However, if we define 
> it to be reflexive ourselves, we complicate matters for those who 
> think that it isn't.
>
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>     As we discuss axioms of specialization/alternateOf
>
>     is specializationOf  reflexive?
>
>     Luc
>
>
>     On 03/27/2012 03:52 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>         alt1 and alt2 is good. It is fairly obvious (but should be
>         explained
>         in constraints) that alternateOf(a, b) indirectly implies
>         alternateOf(b, a), as it implies
>
>         specializationOf(a, X)
>         specializationOf(b, X)
>
>         and that implies:
>
>         alternateOf(b, a)
>         alternateOf(a, b)
>
>
>         Would we need to say that if
>
>           alternateOf(a, b)
>           alternateOf(a, c)
>
>         it does not imply:
>
>           alternateOf(b, c)
>
>         ?
>
>
>         On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 22:46, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu
>         <mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>>  wrote:
>
>             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
>             <mailto: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 <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
>                 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330>
>                 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
>
>
>
>
>                 --
>                 -----------  ~oo~  --------------
>                 Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk
>                 <mailto:Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk>,
>                 pmissier@acm.org <mailto:pmissier@acm.org>
>                 School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
>                 http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>
>
>
>
>
>             --
>             Jim McCusker
>             Programmer Analyst
>             Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>             Yale School of Medicine
>             james.mccusker@yale.edu <mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> |
>             (203) 785-6330 <tel:%28203%29%20785-6330>
>             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
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Professor Luc Moreau
>     Electronics and Computer Science   tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>     University of Southampton          fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>     <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>     Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>     <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu <mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
> http://tw.rpi.edu

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 16:28:46 GMT

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