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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:39:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4F72257A.9030607@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 27/03/2012 17:09, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi,
> As we discuss axioms of specialization/alternateOf
>
> is specializationOf reflexive?

I don't think there's a single correct answer - it's a choice.

Personally, I prefer the choice that it is reflexive; i.e. specializationOf(a,a) 
always holds.  As I recall, that seems to simplify some other inferential machinery.

#g
--

>
> 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> 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>
>>> 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, 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 | (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 Tuesday, 27 March 2012 20:41:16 GMT

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