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

While we're on this, mathematical complement is an inherently symmetric
property. I think we need to continue investigating better names (I can make
new issue for that, if that's appropriate).

Jim

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu> wrote:

> When I read the current document, I see complementOF is defined as one-way
> - you can assert it in both directions, but the text talks about a case
> where B is a complementOf A but not the reverse. Can the editors confirm
> that's the intent? If so, perhaps we can move to refining text to avoid the
> perception that symmetry is required (i.e. talk about the asymmetric case
> first...). I'm not sure what of 29 and 57 then survive as unresolved
> concerns - perhaps whether transitivity can be defined?
>
> Cheers,
>  Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cresswell, Stephen
> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:15 AM
> > To: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: 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).
> > i.e.
> >   (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
> >
> > Web:  www.tso.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Missier
> > Sent: 23 September 2011 12:06
> > To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > __________
> > 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:
> > http://www.star.net.uk
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > __________
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > *********************************
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu