Re: PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model]

Hi Tim
I am not trying to write this level of detail in prov-dm, but it's only for my own benefit.

I suppose what I meant
Is specialisationOf reflexive?

I am unclear how we define "more constrained"?

If it is reflexive, then the implication I suggested holds.




Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom


On 26 Mar 2012, at 15:37, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu<mailto:lebot@rpi.edu>> wrote:


On Mar 26, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:

Dear all,

Thanks for your very useful suggestions.

I have drafted a revised section in a separate file
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html

Does capture what has been discussed so far?

Also, if specialization(a,b) is it the case that alternateOf(a,b)?

This may be the case, but I wouldn't impose the inference.
specialization(a,b) may actually be citing the common entity of two alternates (which is unknown by the altOf assertion) - so there would be no need to hunt down "another" common between the specialization and the specialized.

e.g., in :

:yesterdayNews prov:alternateOf :todayNews .
:yesterdayNews prov:specializationOf :newsNews .
:todayNews prov:specializationOf :newsNews .

I'm not sure why we'd need:

:yesterdayNews prov:alternateOf :newsNews .
which would imply:

:yesterdayNews prov:specializationOf :turtlesWholeWayDown .
:newsNews prov:specializationOf :turtlesWholeWayDown .


-Tim



Regards,
Luc

On 25/03/2012 17:16, Timothy Lebo wrote:

On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Jim McCusker wrote:

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org<mailto:GK@ninebynine.org>> wrote:
In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round to, I question whether we actually need to have these concepts in the DM.

Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain the relationship between provenance entities and (possibly dynamic) real world things.  With the looser description of the provenance model terms, I don't see why this level of detail is needed in the data model.

Then you don't recollect correctly.

I remember IPV-of as the "relationship between provenance entities and (possibly dynamic) real world things", but specializationOf has developed into a more general association between entities that can include this original purpose. Indeed, eg-19 [1] is using alt and specOf for _exactly_ this original "frozen snapshot of changing things" notion -- applied to datasets and web services.

Instead of digging up the archives, perhaps we can rally around altOf and specOf being the tools we use to associate (and make sense of) assertions made by the combinations of scruffy and proper provenance.
(Like Simon's extension to Stian's BBC example). In addition, it's an incredibly useful construct for one's own "proper" modeling.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-19-derived-named-graph-attribution

They were defined because there was an acknowledgement that there were multiple symbols that denoted a common thing in the world. Sometimes they reflected different aspects of the same thing (alternativeOf) and sometimes they had a subsumptive quality (specializationOf).

I think these previous two statements contradict (and steer scarily towards owl:sameAs, which alt and specOf are certainly _not_)
Different aspects of the same thing are not the same things.

-Tim


Jim
--
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu<mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu> | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu<http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/>

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu<mailto:mccusj@cs.rpi.edu>
http://tw.rpi.edu<http://tw.rpi.edu/>