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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-153 (complementarity): Complementarity description differs from model definition [Primer]

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:46:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=TZ-1K3fjd3CGAdpHV-79GmnSmDQiiX9XJ33VX3owb=8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
+1 to GK's identification of (there is X between one entity and another if
everything that characterizes the second is also true of the first) as a
useful property. I propose "contextualized" as the predicate. Two entities
that contextualized a common entity complemented (in our current parlance)
each other.

Also, I like "contextualized" and "complemented" as terms here rather than
"wasContextualizationOf" and "wasComplementOf" since it's a clearer verb
phrase, easier to remember, shorter, and more direct.


On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> Simon,
> (hurried response)
> I think what you say is True.  But Primer says (or said):
> [[
> In PROV-DM, we say there is complementarity between one entity and another
> if everything that characterizes the second is also true of the first.
> ]]
> --
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/4ebbb4e5ca48/primer/**
> Primer.html#complementarity<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/4ebbb4e5ca48/primer/Primer.html#complementarity>
> My point was that this is not aligned with PROV-DM.
> But I happen to think it's a more useful property to define (modulo name)
> - and as stated above is clearly transitive.
> #g
> --
> On 21/11/2011 21:10, Simon Miles wrote:
>> Hello Graham,
>> I don't think either the complementarity concept in Prov-DM or the
>> wasComplementOf relation in Prov-O are symmetric are they? The Prov-DM
>> description of complementarity specifically includes "In the
>> particular case where the set P of attributes of B is a strict
>> superset of A's attributes, then we say that B is-complement-of A, but
>> in this case the opposite does not hold." If complementarity is
>> asymmetric in any case, then it is an asymmetric relation in general.
>> The Prov-O wasComplementOf relation has a direction and it isn't said
>> to imply the inverse.
>> More importantly, the primer intuition section should not try to cover
>> all the possible cases or make normative statements, but illuminate
>> the key idea with a simple example. I believe the key idea of
>> complementarity is that two entities may be perspectives on the same
>> thing, and I think the first paragraph does describe this key idea.
>> The second paragraph in the primer is then a more detailed example,
>> using the asymmetric case. I agree that complementarity is not
>> necessarily asymmetric, but I think that case is the easiest to
>> briefly explain why prov:wasComplementOf has direction in the worked
>> example.
>> I'm open to suggestions on how to be clearer and more complete in this
>> section as long as we keep it non-technical.
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> On 18 November 2011 09:17, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
>>> PROV-ISSUE-153 (complementarity): Complementarity description differs
>>> from model definition [Primer]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/**track/issues/153<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/153>
>>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>>> On product: Primer
>>> Primer section: 2.7 Complementarity
>>> While I personally think the notion of complementarity described here is
>>> the
>>> more useful one, I don't think it agrees with the current PROV-DM
>>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/**raw-file/tip/model/**
>>> ProvenanceModel.html#record-**complement-of<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-complement-of>
>>> ).
>>> (What you describe here might be termed "characterizationOf" (of
>>> "viewOf"),
>>> which notion I see as being foundational to the way entities are related
>>> to
>>> things.)
>>> To clarify: in my reading, primer defines complementarity as an
>>> asymmetric relationship, where one characterization is subsumed by the
>>> other.  But the model definition is symmetric,  simply saying that the
>>> characterizations overlap in some sense.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 15:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC