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: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:08:29 +0100
Message-ID: <50752CFD.1060902@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Simon

I guess what I was suggesting was just that -- to clarify in the primer. Is there a proposed alternative woding?

Thanks,
   -Paolo

On 09/10/2012 16:49, Miles, Simon wrote:
> 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,pmissier@acm.org  
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 08:08:52 UTC

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