Re: Different senses of specialization

On 04/09/2012 10:57 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> To summarize:
> - I think we should be careful about these different senses of "specializationOf".
> - Only the first sense is supported by the current version of the semantics.
> - If we can agree on one of these definitions for specializationOf, but believe other senses need to be modeled, we should introduce additional relations to name them, and ensure that the meanings are clear and they are used consistently in examples.

I'm trying to relate my example:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Apr/0027.html

with your descriptions.

I think there is a need for a FRBR like system for the types of
representations I am trying to express.  I suspect it is too
complicated for PROV to attack the whole problem right now.


One of the concepts we've been working with is relating two things
with a concept I've called "provenance equivalence" i.e. two things
that were made in essentially[1] the same way.

[1] essentially = Those elements of provenance from which their
essence is derived.


Building on my previous example:

Suppose I don't archive the data at all, I have a process on demand
system that generates a data file whenever it is requested.

User A gets file x and user B gets file y.

They are made by the same system in the same way, using a process that
is supposed to be reproducible.  The intent of the system developer is
that x and y be the same (be equivalent).


file x and file y are different.  They were made at different times,
have different agents that start them, etc. but they also 'use' the
same inputs and apply the same software algorithm/software, through
very similar activities.


What is the relationship between file x and file y?

Is x alternateOf y?


I would say no, based on our definitions, since we might be wrong --
the process might not be reproducible (for whatever reason) and x and
y might have real essential differences.


Even if alternateOf is the wrong thing to use for this example, it
seems like there is a real relationship between x and y that we should
be able to claim/assert/represent.

Curt

Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 16:19:44 UTC