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: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:20:36 +0100
Message-ID: <5064C324.8020005@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 27/09/2012 19:58, Paolo Missier wrote:
> 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

The above works for me.

If you adopt a class-oriented (OWL?) perspective, the alternateOf here would 
seem a bit odd.  But I'd see it applied to a single person, say Alice, a mother, 
when considering:

   Alice as a woman
and
   Alice as a parent

To me, these seem quite reasonable as alternativeOf views of Alice.

#g
--
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:30:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:30:04 GMT