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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:56:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4ECC1AA7.1060002@ninebynine.org>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On 22/11/2011 15:46, Jim McCusker wrote:
> +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.

Yes, but a nit:  I think it's possible for:

   A1 contextualized A
   A2 contextualized A

without:

   A1 complemented A2

as it is, by my understanding, possible for A1 and A2 to have no overlapping 
attributes.  (Like: http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm ?)

(But, personally, I think I prefer this definition, which isn't possible without 
the "contextualized" notion.)

> 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.

I think I could come to like that :)

#g
--

> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 07:05:27 UTC

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