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

Jim Myers wrote:
> I'm not sure what of 29 and 57 then survive as unresolved concerns - perhaps whether transitivity can be defined?

I have two concerns (or perhaps the same concern approached from two directions).

(1)
I think that the assertion wasComplementOf(B,A) implicitly defines a new entity.
The new entity has a time interval which is the temporal intersection of those of A and B.
The new entity has a set of attribute-value pairs which is the union of those of A and B.

However, if I want to make this new entity explicit, I can't.  The vocabulary I need to use to state its relationship to A and B is missing.


---- Why not C with attributes location and membership that is a complement of A and B?

(2)
One use for the original IVPof was (I thought) to relate together long-term entities (e.g. Luc-over-his-lifetime) with shorter-term entities describing states (e.g. Luc-in-Boston).  Now it seems that the strongest assertion that I can make about the relationship of these two entities is:

  wasComplementOf( Luc-in-Boston, Luc-over-his-lifetime )

... but this just asserts that Luc's visit to Boston *overlapped* with his lifetime, which is weaker than what I wanted to assert.


--what's missing? I take this as meaning there was a Luc-in-Boston entity that is an alternate characterization of Luc that is only valid during his trip to Boston, not that these entities just coexist in time. Do you want something more than that or do you think that interpretation is not captured in the definition of complementOf?





If I also want to describe a visit to MIT that Luc made while in Boston, I could also assert

  wasComplementOf( Luc-at-MIT, Luc-in-Boston )

Since the assertions are quite vague, we can't infer that Luc-over-his-lifetime contained Luc-at-MIT, and we can't even infer that they overlapped.
I think it would be useful to be able to make some stronger assertions that allow transitivity to be used here.  At some point during its evolution, IVPof was close to being that helpful transitive relation, but now its gone.  I think we still need it.




--- What's missing from the complementOf definition (that was in ivpOf?)? Doesn't your assumption above that there's a new entity that is the intersection of two complementary entities force transitivity during the intersection interval?





  -- Jim

Stephen Cresswell

-----Original Message-----
From: Myers, Jim [mailto:MYERSJ4@rpi.edu]
Sent: Fri 23/09/2011 18:21
To: Cresswell, Stephen; 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]

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> [mailto:public-prov-wg-
> request@w3.org<mailto:request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Cresswell, Stephen
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:15 AM
> To: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<http://www.tso.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, pmissier@acm.org<mailto: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
>
>


________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________