- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:14:04 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Tom De Nies <tom.denies@ugent.be>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
FWIW, I think it would be wrong to define specialization with FRBR concepts. Let's take FRBR expression and manifestation: - expression may be a particular performance of a musical composition. - manifestation may be a recording reproduced on CD of that performance I don't think it is coherent to claim that the recording is a specialization of the performance. E.g. the performance takes place on a particular date. That cannot be said of the CD. Or the performance may have been produced by one agent, the CD by another. I think similar considerations apply across the range of FRBR core concepts (work, expression, manifestation, item). #g -- On 02/04/2012 13:38, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Tom De Nies wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I had trouble understanding the reasoning of this example as well.. >> In our data model, the email would rather be a collection, and the signature an element of it, rather than a specialization of it. >> A specialization of "this email" would be, for example. the "printed version on my desk", which is a specialization of "my thoughts on this email thread". >> > > +1 (your phrasing is exactly what FRBR addresses; we're borrowing their notions to create a simpler form with atlOf and specOf) > > >> Intuitively, I am having trouble coming up with a counterexample of the transitivity of our specialization. > > Me too. > > -Tim > > >> >> 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 Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> >> is this example really reflecting specialisation? The signature is contained in the email message. Is it a specialisation of it? >> >> On 2 Apr 2012, at 00:11, "Stian Soiland-Reyes"<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> My signature in the end of this email is a specialization of this >>> email message, which is a specialization of my thoughts on this email >>> thread. However the signature is not a specialization of those >>> thoughts. >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:23:17 UTC