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: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:27:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=RrpDucHSSEcGPJnAvhWC==o2QVuU91Wqez-951fT4=uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I can get behind "restricted". As for "complementarity", I think it reeks
of a set theoretical relation that doesn't necessarily hold. I think that
"hadAspect" would be preferable, but we may just need to brainstorm,
constrain, and vote.


On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>wrote:

>  Hi Graham,
> On 11/23/11 9:18 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>  -1 for using "contextualized" as the basis for "complementarity".
> as Graham points out:
> A1 \subset B and A1 \subset B does not imply that A1 and A2 are not disjoint.
>  Out of interest, do you have a use-case for which complementarity depends on
> there being an actual overlap of attributes, as opposed to both being
> contextualizations of some common thing?
>  the old "royal society" example is meant to exemplify a pattern where
> each observer has a partial view on some system state (state = complete set
> of attribute value pairs), but there is  no "common thing" that is given to
> them: nobody has the /complete/ state. Indeed, the idea is that the common
> thing emerges by taking the union of the two sets of attributes, on the
> basis that the overlapping portions are mutually consistent (i.e. a mapping
> can be established).
> We may be saying the same thing: a "common thing" that subsumes both
> exists, but in this example it only becomes manifested /as a consequence
> of/ the observers agreeing that they are each looking at two projections of
> it.
> Indeed your last comment seems to agree with this view: in an open world,
> there is some common entity that subsumes our views, but it may not have
> been explicated.
>   The inspiration for this is the notion of "record linkage", or the
> process by which you "discover" such common entity, and you benefit from
> the discovery by taking all that you know from each of the individual
> pieces. I just would like to have this setting expressed as part of  PROV
> because it's the only place where you can make an attempt at "joining up"
> or reconcile different assertions made independently about what is in
> reality the "common thing".
> I think what you are referring is complementary to this, namely you do
> have a a priori "common thing", you derive views from it, and you call them
> the complement of each other.
> I see no conflicts here, I believe that both should be expressible.
> Regarding terminology, either "restriction" or "projection" work relative
> to the common thing, but they don't work in relation to each other.  In any
> case, both are meant in their algebraic sense:
> restriction:  "Any function can be restricted to a subset<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset>
>  of its domain. The restriction of *g* : *A* → *B* to *S*, where *S* ⊆ *A*,
> is written *g* |*S* : *S* → *B*."  (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_restriction)
> projection: well, this we all know :-)
> --Paolo
>  (Arguably, in an open-world environment such as the web, the fact that two
> entities contextualize some common other entity suggests very strongly that
> there does exist some attribute that is common, even if it has not been explicated.)
> #g
> --

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 Wednesday, 23 November 2011 14:28:42 UTC

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