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

Hi Paolo,

Yes, I agree that the current wasComplementOf can be symmetrical, and I
have no objection to closing issue 29.

I do still think that a concept of IVPof that is antisymmetric and
transitive, so that "B IVPof A" means something like "B and A describe
the same stuff, and B's interval is within A's interval" is a simpler
and stronger concept.  It can co-exist with wasComplementOf, and it can
be used to define (a symmetric form of) wasComplementOf (which
admittedly doesn't match the current definition).
  (B wasComplementOf A) <=> exists C.(C IVPof A & C IVPof B)

Since wasComplementOf is a relation that only holds over the temporal
intersection A and B anyway, then saying it with this IVPof at least
makes you introduce an entity C that models the relevant interval.

However, I think that's basically what Graham said and it is a different
issue - PROV-ISSUE-57.

Stephen Cresswell

Tel:  +44 (0) 01603 69 6926



-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Paolo Missier
Sent: 23 September 2011 12:06
Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually
"IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]


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superseded by the current version of the model.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Specifically:  IVP-of has been replaced by ComplementOf, which *does*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.


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]
> 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
> - 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 -,
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

This email, including any attachment, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply and delete all copies from your system. Do not retain, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use any of its contents.  

Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email has been swept for computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email does not contain such material and we therefore advise you to carry out your own virus checks. We do not accept liability for any damage or losses sustained as a result of such material.

Please note that incoming and outgoing email communications passing through our IT systems may be monitored and/or intercepted by us solely to determine whether the content is business related and compliant with company standards.

The Stationery Office Limited is registered in England No. 3049649 at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG

Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 14:15:58 UTC