W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: viewOf / complementOf discussion in 201-12-15 telecon

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:33 +0000
Message-ID: <4EF22BE1.4000608@ncl.ac.uk>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, Stephen, and all

we have made further edits to the viewOf/complementOf section, making further simplifications based on the recent discussions. In 
particular, we have omitted all references to the semantics layer which, although required to assert properties such as transitivity 
and symmetry, does not belong in this document. Such discussions will most likely move to the PROV-SEM space.

One key change is the name of the relations. We felt that "viewOf" for the "more concrete / stronger characterization" relation was 
misleading, and we opted for specializationOf().
Similarly, complementOf / foobar is now alternateOf().

Feedback welcome as usual.

Regards,
   -Paolo

On 12/21/11 3:09 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Paolo,
>
> Broadly this looks good to me, but I think you may have copied my typo:
>
>   >  foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(x, a) and viewOf(x, b)
>
> should rather be
>
>   >  foobar(a, b) == exists(x) : viewOf(a, x) and viewOf(b, x)
>
> (I.e. there exists some x such that both a and b are a view of that x.)
>
> ...
>
> Also, a comment, but I don't think it impacts the proposal:
>
>   >  The fundamental assumption that an entity represents /exactly one/ 'real world
>   >  thing' seems to be built into the current semantics already, and I would be
>   >  surprised if it weren't, so I see no problem.
>
> The problem I see is deciding what constitutes a "real world thing", and the
> /possibility/ that we have viewOf(a, b) where both a and b might be considered
> to be real world things.
>
> If we don't need to refer (formally) to real world things, which I think the
> current proposal does not, then this is just a rhetorical device to explain the
> intuition and we don't need to be further concerned about the detail here.
>
> #g
> --
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 18:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC