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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-526: Data Model Section 5.5.2 [prov-dm]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:58:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5064A1C4.2080203@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc,

please see below  (apologies for the delay)

On 9/25/12 3:43 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On 25/09/2012 15:11, Paolo Missier wrote:
>> The definition is indeed vague to the point that making two entities alternates seems arbitrary.
>> To me this means that one can always assert the equivalence amongst two entities if *you* think they are aspects of the same 
>> thing, just like one can assert owl:sameAs, and then live with the consequences.
>
> +1
>> For instance
>> a alternateOf b
>> b alternateOf c
>> a specializationOf c
>> would not be consistent if you do the reasoning.
>>
>
> why?
sorry it is consistent, I ignored inf. 20 (specialization implies alternate) and just assumed that two entities that belong to the 
same equivalence class should not be in a specialization hierarchy.
But then I just realized I don't quite understand the point of Inf. 20:  Why has it been introduced?

you now have that specializations create equivalence classes, in particular

a specializationOf b
a specializationOf c

implies   a alternateOf b and a alternateOf c
and therefore
b alternateOf c

which is a bit odd. For an OWL-inclined reader, specialization has a SubClassOf flavour, so this would be

Mother specializationOf  Woman
Mother specializationOf  Parent

therefore Woman and Parent are "alternates" -- this seems to make the interpretation of "alternateOf" even more mysterious. Or is it 
just me

--Paolo
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:58:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:58:58 GMT