Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

Hi Khalid and Jim,

If you have a problem with the isComplementOf relation, may I suggest 
you raise
an issue against the model document, and don't discuss it, in the PAQ 
thread.

Thanks,
Luc

On 08/17/2011 06:31 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
> 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
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 10:34:25 UTC