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

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 16:02, Myers, Jim <> wrote:
> +1 – I think the common meaning is at odds with what we want (though it is
> certainly more pronounceable than ivpOf)

+1 as well, I am still confused by "complement of". It sounds like it
is more like "at some point had a kind of overlap".

I had failed to pick up from the model that now if B wasComplementOf A
then B is allowed to live for longer than A.


wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l2)
wasComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)

which to me don't match the picture - m2 is fully within beginning and
end of L1 - while m3 is overlapping parts of L1 and parts of L2.

Was the intention here to assert:

wasComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)
wasComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l1)
wasComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
wasComplementOf(rs_m4, rs_l2)
wasComplementOf(rs_m4, rs_l3)


Ie. saying that "At some undefined duration during lifetime of rs_m3,
its fixed and dynamic attributes matched those fixed by rs_l1"?

So there is not any way to say that for the whole duration of rs_m1 it
was also sharing the attributes of rs_l1? (Ie. if someone wanted to
know the (functional property) location for rs_m1 (when membership was
250) you can only conclude "At least at some point it was 'loc2' - but
it could have been anything else as well".  This is what the old IVPof

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

Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 12:02:48 UTC