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 22:37:22 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d8ade5570b04aeff3ef8095967b7f957o2QMci08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F723312.60808@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James,

You write "due to the requirement that entity intervals overlap".
You will notice that the current definition in English
appearing in

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html

does not seem to require an entity interval overlap.
Can the semantics support this too?

Regards,
Luc



On 27/03/12 20:42, James Cheney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The formal semantics draft for WD3 [1] addressed this, and the bottom 
> line is currently:
>
> alternateOf: reflexive, symmetric, NOT transitive (due to the 
> requirement that entity intervals overlap).
>
> specializationOf: reflexive, transitive, NOT symmetric, NOT 
> antisymmetric (no requirement that two mutually specializing entities 
> are equal, but we could add this).
>
> We can easily adjust the formalization of specializationOf to not be 
> reflexive (or to require that it is irreflexive).
>
> I plan to read the current version of WD5 over the next day or so and 
> update this.  I don't think the informal definitions have changed that 
> much though.
>
> Part of the point of the formal semantics is to provide a 
> rationalization for these types of properties, especially where there 
> has been a lot of discussion or disagreement.  So I would appreciate 
> feedback on the formal semantics from people who are interested in 
> these questions.  I will also notify the list by Friday when the 
> revised version is ready.  (At a conference this week so it's been 
> hard to find time for this since my talk was today.)
>
> --James
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>                 <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
>>>                 <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
>>>             <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/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     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 <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/>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>      
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>    
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 21:39:25 GMT

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