- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:58:12 +0100
- 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 UTC