Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

Hi,

as we are going through older issues, this one seems to have been superseded by the current version of the model. We propose to 
close it pending review (that means, Stephen can you please call in with your current view on this, thank you).

Specifically:  IVP-of has been replaced by ComplementOf, which *does* allow for symmetry.

-Paolo


On 7/11/11 12:22 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other  [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/29
>
> Raised by: Stephen Cresswell
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> As it currently stands, I believe that it does not exclude the possibility that two bobs may be mutually "IVP of" each other -
> i.e. you could have bobs A, B such that (B IVPof A)&  (A IVPof B), and this is surely not intended.
>
> This could arise if, for bobs A, B :
> - A and B both represent the same entity
> - A and B share some immutable properties, and they have corresponding values.
> - B has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of A
> - A has some immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B
>
> Possibly the asserter-defined test (included in "IPV of" definition) that real world states modelled by A and B are "consistent" may disallow
> "IPV of" in this situation.  However, unless that is guaranteed, I think that the definition of "B IPV of A" (if it is still to have a definition) should additionally require that:
> "A has no immutable properties which correspond to mutable properties of B"
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier

Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 11:06:20 UTC