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

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 09:18, 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
>
> 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).


You are right. This is my original explanation:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e0a00fcee786/primer/Primer.html#complementarity
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e0a00fcee786/primer/Primer.html#complementarity-1

but it's difficult to come up with good examples in this usecase that
is not in practice the very-much-desired prov:viewOf.

In the DM the example is given of "The royal society by location" and
"The royal society by member number". This is perhaps not something
that is natural to talk about provenance of - but we could transform
this to an example with two entities of "The file on a given hard disk
location" and "The file with a given content".

Then these would have different provenance traces, but at some point
would overlap in time, and have a wasComplementOf relation. This still
begs the question of WHEN WAS THAT - but that is not covered by the
current was complement of mechanism.


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 15:50:13 UTC