RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

I hadn't interpreted the name change and lifting of the property restrictions as changing the definition as you do it below. Is that what is being proposed? To limit complementOf to ~peer relations versus simply being a drop-in replacement for IVPof with less definition of how properties might relate?

 Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:22 AM
> To: Myers, Jim
> Cc: Khalid Belhajjame; Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> 
> I too find the name unhelpful.  But I'm also concerned about the form of the
> definition.  I'm not sure "generality" is the right aspect, though, as in some
> ways I see IVPof (to use the old name) as being more general than
> complementOf.
> 
> Why:
> 
> Roughly, using SPARQL, I can use IVPof to locate instances of complementOf.
> But I can't see how to do the other way.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> [[
> CONSTRUCT
>     { ?v1 complementOf ?v2 }
> WHERE
>     { ?v1 IVPof ?r ; ?v2 IVPof ?r }
> ]]
> 
> So from this operational perspective, IVPof is more generally applicable.
> 
> (But from another perspective, this is possible because IVPof is more
> constraining - less general - that complementOf.  Hence my comment about
> generality not necessarily being a helpful criterion.)
> 
> I find that when I think about provenance being related to an invariant or less
> variant view of a resource (e.g. see the discussion at
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-
> access.html#provenance--context-and-resources),
> the notion of IVP is useful.  I have not yet found a case where
> talking/thinking about complementOf is useful to me.  Fior this reason, I
> prefer having IVPof (or viewOf, or some other name) to complementOf.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> 
> Myers, Jim wrote:
> > I'm complaining about the name 'complement' not the generality of the
> > definition. Complementary angles are not different characterizations
> > of the same angle, they are different angles that create a whole. A
> > wine complements food. Some other term with the broader definition
> > would be fine. (BTW: I am beginning to think that being able to
> > associate a time interval with the relationship would be useful...)
> >
> >  Jim
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Khalid Belhajjame [mailto:Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:31 PM
> >> To: Myers, Jim
> >> Cc: Paul Groth; Graham Klyne; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>
> >> Hi Jim
> >>
> >> On 16/08/2011 13:45, Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>> As for complementOf - since complement means 'counterpart' and has
> >>> the
> >> notion of not being the same thing - being separate and adding to the
> >> thing, I don't think it works as a replacement for IVPof - viewOf
> >> doesn't capture everything but would be better than complement in
> >> that its English meaning does not conflict ...
> >>
> >> I am not sure I understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?
> >>
> >> The way is complement of is defined seems to me more general that IVP
> >> of and also more natural. While IVPof requires that all the immutable
> >> attributes of one characterization are subset of the immutable
> >> attributes of the other characterization, isComplementOf does not
> >> pose this constraint, which is
> >> plausible: in practice, when we have two characterizations of an
> >> entity, these characterizations are likely to use different set of
> >> attributes depending on the observer, and the likelihood that the
> >> immutable attributes of one are subset of the immutable attributes of the
> second is small.
> >>
> >> Khalid
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>   Jim
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Paul Groth [mailto:p.t.groth@vu.nl]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:21 AM
> >>>> To: Myers, Jim
> >>>> Cc: Graham Klyne; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jim
> >>>>
> >>>> I think<link>  elements in PAQ serve a different purpose the
> >>>> semantics is here's how you find me (the resource)  in provenance
> >> information.
> >>>> ComplementOf has a much more constrained meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:01, "Myers, Jim"<MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are
> >>>>> possible.  The example I've started thinking about is that
> >>>>> multiple <link>  elements might indicate different URIs denoting
> >>>>> different levels of
> >>>> invariance.
> >>>>> - why aren't these just IVPof relationships? (I'm not arguing
> >>>>> against encoding pil relationships as links, just against adding a 'target'
> >>>>> concept that duplicates other relationships in the model.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim
> >>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>> From: Graham Klyne [graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:38 PM
> >>>>> To: Myers, Jim
> >>>>> Cc: Paul Groth; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Myers, Jim wrote:
> >>>>>>> In Issue 46 (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/46), Luc
> >>>>>>> raised the point that the scenario we had agreed to address
> >>>>>>> included a case where the recipient of a resource representation
> >>>>>>> had no way to know its URI for the purposes of provenance
> >>>>>>> discovery.  After short discussion, my response to this issue
> >>>>>>> was to introduce a new link relation type (currently called
> >>>>>>> "target") to allow this URI to be encoded
> >>>> in the header of an HTML document.
> >>>>>>> Does this help?
> >>>>>> So this is only used inside an HTML entity?
> >>>>> That was the compelling use-case, but once defined, other uses are
> >>>>> not
> >>>> excluded.
> >>>>>> ... I.e. it is not a relationship between two entities, but is a
> >>>>>> means to embed an identifier in an entity (for HTML)?
> >>>>> Interesting take.  Practically, in the HTML use case, I think I'd
> >>>>> have to
> >> agree.
> >>>>> But I think it is still technically a relation in the same way
> >>>>> that owl:sameAs is a relation, even though its semantics tell us
> >>>>> that the related RDF nodes denote the same thing.  Like all
> >>>>> HTML<link> elements, it defines a relation between the resource of
> >>>>> which the containing document is a representation and a resource
> >>>>> denoted by the given
> >>>> URI.  They may both be the same resource.
> >>>>> But, having introduced the definition in this way, other uses are
> >>>>> possible.  The example I've started thinking about is that
> >>>>> multiple <link>  elements might indicate different URIs denoting
> >>>>> different levels of invariance.  If the HTML is a document in a
> >>>>> source code management system, one such URI might denote a
> >>>>> specific version, and another might denote the "current" version,
> >>>>> both of which might reasonably
> >>>> be the referent for provenance assertions.
> >>>>> These other uses are not reasons that the propoal was introduced,
> >>>>> but are just consequences of not placing unnecessary constraints
> >>>>> on the use of the existing<link>  feature as defined.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> An "ID card" mechanism that would allow me to keep my
> >>>>>> rdf:resource URL
> >>>> on my physical body so you could connect me to my online identity
> >>>> is the same type of thing?
> >>>>> Hmmm... I suppose you might think of it like that, but I'm wary of
> >>>>> adopting that view as it tends to arbitrarily exclude other
> >>>>> possibilities that arguably should flow from this use of the<link>
> element.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #g
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 12:49:53 UTC