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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:15:07 -0400
Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4C821195-BD63-43F7-B4A8-7430AB810525@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Graham Klyne wrote:
>  
> 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.
> 
> Yes, it solves the turtles-all-the-way problem last highlighted by Tim in this thread, if we also made specializationOf(x,y) imply alternativeOf(x,y), as the unknown top-level y can be specializationOf itself. However I think we dismissed the need for such an inference.
> 
> Intuitively it sounds confusing to be an alternative to yourself, or a specialisation of yourself, but as we see above there could be special cases where you would want (a subproperty of) specializationOf/alternativeOf to be reflective, so I would simply say +1 for the conservative say-nothing approach for reflexivity. 

+1

-Tim

> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:15:50 GMT

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