seems reasonable. dutifully taken into account. I forgot to mention in my report that it will prob. take about a week for this to settle -- impending deadline coming up... -Paolo On 1/5/12 7:33 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > > 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 >
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 09:37:38 UTC