- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:55:36 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi James, > > Response interleaved. > > On 02/14/2012 10:29 AM, James Cheney wrote: >> What's the use case? More generally, in WD3 at least, there are no examples of alternateOf or specializationOf in use (with or without attributes). >> >> > > You will recall that this is the first draft of this section with alternateOf and specializationOf ... > > I think that for prov-dm, we are coming to the conclusion that we will not define whether these > relations are symmetric/transitive etc. > Some communities may want to define specialized version that are symmetric/transitive. FWIW, I very much like the conceptual description of altOf and specOf at http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-alternate-specialization I would be sad if the transitive/anti-symmetric/symmetric definitions left because I think it helps the interpretation. But if they left and only the conceptual description stayed, I could get by. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:56:20 UTC