Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The new Alternate and Specialization records seem to make sense to me. 
> 
> - Looking at the definitions of *specializationOf* and *alternateOf*, I for few seconds was wondering if it is a good idea to define a more general relationship that simply says that two entity records are representations of the same entity, without specifying if there is difference in abstraction or context. But, I changed my mind as a result, and I now think that the general relationship that I was looking for is *alternateOf* itself. Indeed, such a relationship seems to be usable in both cases, i.e., different abstractions and/or different contexts. In other words, what I am suggesting is that: 
> specializationOf(e1,e2) implies alternateOf(e1,e2)

"ack!"

Following intent of what is currently stated, this could make sense.

Part of the motivation is that alternateOf would relate similarly-concrete entities, while specialization would relate a more concrete to a less concrete.

Also, we would explode when we try to instantiate the "more abstract" entity that e1 and e2 each characterize.

perhaps restate 
"e1 and e2 provide two different characterizations of the same entity."
to 
"e1 and e2 provide two different characterizations of the same, less concrete, entity."

-Tim


> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> - *alternateOf* is transitive.
> 
> Thanks, khalid
> 
> On 15/12/2011 15:25, Paolo Missier wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> in response to the comments about complementarity on the wiki and on the list, we have prepared a revised version of the section, 
>> where "complementarity" disappears in favour of "viewOf", and the definition is hopefully simplified and more in line with the 
>> expectations: 
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-complement-of    (the anchor name hasn't changed :-)) 
>> 
>> this is for feedback as per today's agenda 
>> 
>> atb -Paolo 
>> 
>> 
>