W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2012

RE: PROV-ISSUE-563 (primer-alternates-figure): Primer Section 3.9 Alternates [Primer]

From: Miles, Simon <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:49:04 +0100
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <830EEE5C741ED54EAB28EBACFFC77984EEAAA8CA52@KCL-MAIL04.kclad.ds.kcl.ac.uk>
Hi Paolo,

Sorry, but I'm not clear what you are suggesting here?

I agree that the statement you refer to can be inferred from the other statements if they were reasoned over, and is redundant in that sense. Its purpose in the primer is to illustrate the use of the alternateOf relation. The reviewer has not understood the specialization and alternate relations, suggesting the primer needs to be clearer.

thanks,
Simon

Dr Simon Miles
Senior Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Transparent Provenance Derivation for User Decisions:
http://eprints.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/1400/

________________________________
From: Paolo Missier [Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk]
Sent: 27 September 2012 20:08
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-563 (primer-alternates-figure): Primer Section 3.9 Alternates [Primer]

Hi,

not sure who raised this, but I believe that in the example of 3.9 the statement

ex:articleV2 prov:alternateOf      ex:articleV1

is redundant, since it follows by Inf. 20 in CONSTR.

This may be noted explicitly but I would keep the statement, as it elicited a relevant comment.

It seems that whoever raised the issue feels, like me, that specializations and alternates should not mix so freely.

-Paolo


On 9/26/12 4:42 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

PROV-ISSUE-563 (primer-alternates-figure): Primer Section 3.9 Alternates [Primer]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/563

Raised by: Simon Miles
On product: Primer

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/LC_Feedback#Primer_Section_3.9

ISSUE-463

The figure makes clear the ambiguous interpretation of "alternateOf". Both V1 and V2 are different "specializations" of "article", yet they are declared to be alternates. I find this unintuitive.







--
-----------  ~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
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 15:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:19 UTC