- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:14:31 +0100
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > Graham, > > I wasn't thinking of Sparql, rather I was more referring to the > definitions. To me IVPof impose an additional constraint compared with > complement of, and therefore, is less general. I appreciate that - I was using SPARQL as an example of how the inference might be used practically given the alternative definition. #g -- > On 19/08/2011 12:22, Graham Klyne wrote: >> 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 Monday, 22 August 2011 09:48:50 UTC