Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

Hi,

Neither of those readings below make sense to me...

I thought the definition of contextualization before was:

An entity that is a contextualization ◊ of another entity presents all aspects of the latter as per the latter's description in another bundle (referred to as remote bundle), and therefore constitutes a particular case of specialization of the latter entity.

Your new text in describing the bundle argument to specializationOf just says this:

bundle: an optional identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.

and this is saying something completely different to: now the bundle is an aspect, rather than the context that includes aspects that we claim e2 also has.  It's not that clear to me what this means (and there is no longer clarifying text about supra being described in the remote bundle b).

I understand we want to avoid the word "context", but this seems to be both renaming and changing the meaning (to something new), which goes beyond what I thought we agreed.

(I thought we had agreed to rename contextualization to something else, but expected that this would be a separate relation, not overloading specialization.  Should have asked.)

FWIW, see also http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Bundles which attempts to formalize what I thought contextualization was about.

--James

On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> Assuming we have a "top level" bundle (I am not sure what it would be exactly),
> I don't think that the two expressions you are suggesting are equivalent.
> 
> specializationOf(e1,e2,toplevelBundle)
> 
> indicates that e1 shares all aspects of e2 and presents a further aspect: the bundle toplevelBundle.
> 
> 
> specializationOf(e1,e2)
> 
> indicates that e1 shares all aspects of e2 and presents and further specific aspects (but without
> indicating which ones): a bundle MAY or MAY NOT have been fixed.
> 
> Luc
> 
> On 06/27/2012 02:57 PM, James Cheney wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am happy with renaming contextualization to something less controversial, but renaming it to specialization seems (to me) confusing, unless it's clear that the semantics of the two variants are compatible.
>> 
>> Do we have a name for the "top level" bundle in PROV (i.e., the anonymous bundle that contains the toplevel expressions), and supposing we do, is
>> 
>> specializationOf(e1,e2)
>> 
>> equivalent to
>> 
>> specializationOf(e1,e2,toplevelBundle)
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> --James
>> 
>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> At the face to face meeting, we have agreed to rename contextualization and mark this feature
>>> at risk.  Tim, Stephan, Paul and I have worked a solution that we now share with the working group.
>>> 
>>> Given that contextualization was already defined as a kind of specialization, we now allow an optional
>>> bundle argument in the specialization relation.  (Hence, no need to create a new concept!)
>>> 
>>> See section 5.5.1 in the current Editor's draft
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-specialization
>>> 
>>> Feedback welcome.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> PS. Tracker, this is ISSUE-385
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
> Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
> 
> 
>