W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2012

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

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:14:56 +0000
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, ProvenanceWorking Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0a00237b9efdf4a5b8dd040969eb46cdo31JEx08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|CA491E1B-DE22-46B0-919B-BE1ADB627E8E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 2 Apr 2012, at 18:54, "Jim McCusker" <mccusj@rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@rpi.edu>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Ok, so

1. can you confirm that two alternates may not have any overlap in time?

Two copies of the same book, where copy A was destroyed before copy B was made.


2. Is alternate reflexive or not?  With time based definition it seems it is. With specialisation based definition it seems it may not be (depends whether any entity is always a specialisation of some entity)

I think that it's okay for alternate to be reflexive. The controversy was whether or not specialization is.

Reflexivity is not obvious with your definition.  Since for alternateOf (e,e) to hold, e needs to be specialisation of an entity. Is it?

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu<mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 18:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:11 UTC