- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:16:55 +0000
- To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- CC: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jim (haven't read your latest email, except to spot that you disagree with transitivity, but I am not prepared to argue just now) I think unless you are prepared to accept that they are different characterization of the same real-world thing, then they should not be alternates of each other. (at least) one of the two is not the customer in the red chair. -Paolo On 1/17/12 5:04 PM, Myers, Jim wrote: > Which one do you claim is wrong? Or do you think that paolo-in-cafe and stian-in-cafe are still alternates? > > -- Jim > ________________________________________ > From: Paolo Missier [Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 11:37 AM > To: Stian Soiland-Reyes > Cc: Paolo Missier; Luc Moreau; public-prov-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text > > Hi Stian, > > but really, alternateOf() is designed /precisely/ to provide to say that e1, e2, are different characterizations of the /same thing/. > > So if you assert > > alternateOf(paoloInCafe, customerOnRedChair) > > then you are indeed saying that they are the same thing, only using different characterizations. > And if you then also assert that > > alternateOf(stianInCafe, customerOnRedChair) > > then inferring that > > alternateOf(paoloInCafe, stianInCafe) > > is exactly what you want. If they are meant to be different things in the world, then one of the two assertions should not be there > in the first place, right? > > I hope we can agree on this! > > --Paolo > > > On 1/17/12 3:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 14:31, Paolo Missier<Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> I think of alternateOf as non-functional and transitive, which gives us >>> "clusters of alternates". We may later decide that it is convenient to add >>> properties that make a set of alternates into a lattice. >> No, not transitive. >> >> entity(customerOnRedChair, [prov:location="the red chair in the cafe"]) >> entity(paoloInCafe) >> entity(stianInCafe) >> entity(paolo) >> entity(stian) >> >> specializationOf(paoloInCafe, paolo) >> specializationOf(stianInCafe, stian) >> >> alternateOf(paoloInCafe, customerOnRedChair) >> alternateOf(stianInCafe, customerOnRedChair) >> >> >> but we probably don't want to then infer: >> alternateOf(paoloInCafe, stianInCafe) >> >> and certainly not: >> alternateOf(paolo, stian) >> >> .. neither did overlap the old characterisation intervals, and are >> different 'things' in the world. >> >> >> however, if Paolo and Stian did not sit anywhere else but in the red >> chair, we can also have: >> >> >> specializationOf(paoloInCafe, >> customerOnRedChair)specializationOf(stianInCafe, customerOnRedChair) >> this implies that for the duration of paoloInCafe, it was also >> customerOnRedChair. >> > > -- > ----------- ~oo~ -------------- > Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org > School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK > http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier > > -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:17:23 UTC