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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:21:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=R-+GV1r_dPbzdoGke-ocoM3zVPyU82RSQqtGdyuJ6P5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think that, at the very least, we can rule out anti-reflexive. The
question is then if every entity specializes itself. What it comes down to,
then, are essentially epsilon amounts of specialization. Since we don't
require any particular amount of specialization, we certainly allow epsilon
specializations, and I guess since we allow it, there is always an implicit
epsilon specialization. Is this a reasonable argument, or did I just go off
the tracks?

Jim

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>wrote:

> Normally, it seems my refrain is to hold back from over-specifying.  But
> in this case, I can't help wondering if sitting on the fence and saying
> nothing is the worst option.  It suggests that in some cases,
> specializationOf(a,a) may be True, and in others it's False.
>
> I'd agree this doesn't need to be covered in the DM (part 1), but for
> strict interpretations of provenance (-constraints) I think a position
> probably should be taken.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 29/03/2012 13:15, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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 Thursday, 29 March 2012 16:21:58 GMT

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