Re: is specializationOf transitive or not?

As the opposite seems counter-intuitive to me, +1 for transitive

Regards,
Tom
---
Tom De Nies
Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium

t: +32 9 331 49 59
e: tom.denies@ugent.be

URL:  http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be



2012/4/2 Paolo Ncl <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>

> I have always supported the view that it is
>
> Paolo
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 2 Apr 2012, at 11:18, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The purpose of this email is to seek some clarification on what people
> think
> > about the transitive nature of specializationOf.
> >
> > James' semantics [1] defines this relation as transitive.
> >
> > Do you think specializationOf is transitive?
> > If not,  can you give a counter example?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Luc
> >
> > PS: tracker, this is ISSUE-29
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3
> >
> > --
> > Professor Luc Moreau
> > Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> > University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> > Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> >
> >
>
>