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: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:40:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TmEZt7S+Hw4Pf8f-ozn9C_iT-y4147+f+ggxfMBtgicw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
A few ofus noticed that there are a few think-o's in the specialization
definition:

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.

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 *latter*.

The last sentence should be removed, because the "common entity" is
actually from the alternateOf definition.

Jim

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:46 AM, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>  On 30/03/12 10:01, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am getting conflicting messages on this topic!
>
> James has listed some properties derived from the semantics
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0470.html
> But not all of them seem to be aligned with what we are reading on this
> thread.
>
> So, I started drafting a section in prov-dm part II listing the properties
> of these relations [1].
>
> I am proposing to justify each property either by reasoning based on its
> definition,
> or by a counter-example.
>
> *Your suggestions are needed to help us complete this section. *
>
> James, unless my reasoning is incorrect, I do not have transitivity for
> specializationOf.
>
>
> Hi Luc,
>
> Your reasoning (quoting from [1])  is:
>
> Specialization is *not transitive*. Indeed if specializationOf(e1,e2)holds, then there is some common thing, say
> e1-2 they both refer to. Likewise, if specializationOf(e2,e3) holds, then
> there is some common thing, say e2-3 they both refer to. It does not
> follow there is a common thing both e1 and e3 refer to.
>
>
> In the WD3 formal semantics [2], I modeled entities-referring-to-things as
> a function thingOf : Entity -> Thing.
>
> Thus, if thingOf(e1) = e1-2 = thingOf(e2) and thingOf(e2) = e2-3 =
> thingOf(e3) then (by transitivity of equality) e1-2 = e2-3 and all three
> entities refer to the same thing, e1-2.
>
> Of course, it is an assumption I made that an entity "refers to" exactly
> one thing.  If we want to allow entities to refer to multiple things, then
> the reasoning I give above fails, and specializationOf is not necessarily
> transitive.
>
> --James
>
> [1]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html#component4
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>


-- 
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 Saturday, 31 March 2012 16:40:54 GMT

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